Yes, crafting the prompt is both skill and art. But more importantly, knowing what's "wrong" with the first draft and how to fix it is the real skill.
I could set up a tripod aimed at a landscape and have it take a photo every second for a week, then go through the >600k images and select the "best" one. No one would deny my copyright. Or would they? I wasn't there when the shutter was triggered. But how is this different from sitting behind the camera and waiting for that second and pressing the shutter release?
If I select this collection of elements and put them in this arrangement with this lighting and take a photo of it, that's a still life worthy of copyright. But painters, when the camera was invented, argued that you didn't do any work to create that image.
Here's a more practical view: Bob spends a day feeding prompts to Midjourney and publishes the output. Joe - a professional art director with decades of experience - spends a month crating and refining prompts and publishes the output. Does anyone doubt that Joe's collection will be better than Bob's? If so, is that because Midjourney got better when Joe used it? Or is it because Midjourney is a tool - just like a camera is a tool - and the difference in output is the skill of the person using it?
If your work can be replaced by Midjourney, your work isn't worth much to begin with.
Now, the counter-argument: This hollows out the market for beginners. How will anyone ever get to be an expert if you can't get paid while developing your skill? I've got no answer for this one.
I could set up a tripod aimed at a landscape and have it take a photo every second for a week, then go through the >600k images and select the "best" one. No one would deny my copyright. Or would they? I wasn't there when the shutter was triggered. But how is this different from sitting behind the camera and waiting for that second and pressing the shutter release?
If I select this collection of elements and put them in this arrangement with this lighting and take a photo of it, that's a still life worthy of copyright. But painters, when the camera was invented, argued that you didn't do any work to create that image.
Here's a more practical view: Bob spends a day feeding prompts to Midjourney and publishes the output. Joe - a professional art director with decades of experience - spends a month crating and refining prompts and publishes the output. Does anyone doubt that Joe's collection will be better than Bob's? If so, is that because Midjourney got better when Joe used it? Or is it because Midjourney is a tool - just like a camera is a tool - and the difference in output is the skill of the person using it?
If your work can be replaced by Midjourney, your work isn't worth much to begin with.
Now, the counter-argument: This hollows out the market for beginners. How will anyone ever get to be an expert if you can't get paid while developing your skill? I've got no answer for this one.