@maija @EdBoatConnoisseur >weren't you just earlier saying it only spits you terrible code?
Most software is terrible, so most inputs were terrible, so most outputs are terrible - although some of the inputs happened to be good.

>this is an upholding of previous decisions as well, it's not supreme court but it is case law
The ruling was that people who were not the author of a work cannot be the copyright holder.

I see nothing in that article that mentions that such works are public domain.

Really, the copyright holder should be whoever held the copyright on the input works, as those are the people who actually made the work.