This is an abuse of machine learning. Amy algorithm can be tweaked to achieve the intended result, even if you limit the dataset to buildings before the Eiffel tower had lights. It always comes back to a human.
I think that's exactly the point he's making. There's only so many sensible ways one could decoratively light the Eiffel tower, and OP is suggesting that machine learning could generate it artificially.
If that's possible, is there really anything that is non-obvious and copyright-able? If it can't be done, the manipulated photo cannot be held accountable for copyright violations (but it certainly would look like it ought to). The fact that it can come down to something any human can optimize for only makes the law surrounding the copyright of a public display on a building even more absurd.
Well, of course a human could have come up with the light scheme. Anything copyrighted by definition has to have human involvement (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...)
The whole point of IP protections is that you were the FIRST human to come up with it. And now we are in a whole different conversation: does it matter that you were the first?
