INTRODUCTION – 1251
I. THE MYRIAD USES OF GEN-AI TOOLS IN CREATIVE PRACTICE; OR WHY GEN-AI DISCLOSURE DISCLOSES NOTHING – 1254
II. THE DESTABILISED MARKET – 1265
III. RATIONALES FOR THE DICHOTOMY – 1271
IV. THE OLD HARD DRIVE DEBACLE – 1274
V. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ARTIST AND TRUST SYSTEMS – 1275
CONCLUDING: CHALLENGES OF THE NEW REALITY – 1286

In both the United States and Europe, courts seek to deny copyright to works developed with Generative AI (GenAI) tools, in an effort to separate GenAI-outputs from non-GenAI works. Yet there is an infinite spectrum of uses of GenAI tools, from those that negligibly affect the final work to those that conjure entire works with negligible effort. Thus, disclosure of GenAI use in a work’s production discloses precisely nothing – no more than a “software used here” label. Further, GenAI use is broadly unauditable, especially at a granular level within works. In turn, such a dichotomy destabilises the international creative economy blindly without means of asserting its own framework. Thus, redesign of copyright frameworks should not focus on trying to ascertain appropriate authorship thresholds as to when an artwork has had enough human intervention, if it is prima facie clear that it is an original literary or artistic work without any confusion as to its stated author. Any copyright framework that seeks to assert a dichotomy of rights in identical works without means of enforcement is a paper tiger – a distraction from the challenges posed to foundational elements of copyright frameworks by new modes of creative production that demand consideration.