My gut says that you're approaching this at the wrong level of abstraction.
If new tech circumvents the law, the law can easily be changed, so:
> If authors complain it means they want to own ideas and styles.
is "yes, and?"
Also, copyright as it currently exists (a legal construct) is supposedly to promote the arts. GenAI may obviate the economic need to promote the arts… but if art is to us as a peacock's tail, then it won't ever obviate the desire to promote (and protect) the arts. The expense of human labour may be the point.
It would be self defeating for artists. The same tools developed to scan AI art for copyright infringement will trigger on their own works as well. All "side inspiration" will be revealed, it will have a chilling effect on freedom.
Do you want art to be made of little islands of copyright, where someone staked their claim - nobody else is allowed to create? If they can own styles they can ban others from using those styles.
> The same tools developed to scan AI art for copyright infringement will trigger on their own works as well
Perhaps; frightened and angry people often can't see the consequences of the direction they're running in.
But: if the effort is the point of art, then "proof of work" is how that goes down, not your scenario. Filming the artist as they put oil to canvas etc.
> They want copyright to be more like patents.
Not patents, trademarks. Patents cover novel specific inventions for a few years, trademarks cover anything that's similar enough it might confuse a customer for as long as you maintain it.
And what I want is almost irrelevant, the question is the aggregate will of society. My preferences feel like they're negatively correlated with public opinion on the topics loud people discuss most.
If new tech circumvents the law, the law can easily be changed, so:
> If authors complain it means they want to own ideas and styles.
is "yes, and?"
Also, copyright as it currently exists (a legal construct) is supposedly to promote the arts. GenAI may obviate the economic need to promote the arts… but if art is to us as a peacock's tail, then it won't ever obviate the desire to promote (and protect) the arts. The expense of human labour may be the point.