That doesn't actually work. Say you took a book and used an AI to translate it into another language. The translation wouldn't have an additional copyright, the way it would if a human had done the work, but the output would still be restricted by the original copyright. So the presence of the watermark does not tell you that the text is public domain.

That’s not enough to generate copyright protection.

The creativity requirements may seem arbitrary but there’s a legal distinction between a sculpture and a standard brick.

> If copyright does not protect AI-generated content, then AI should not be restricted from generating content that falls under copyright protection

What in the world makes you think that? What is this implication based upon? Where does it say in copyright law that if no copyright arises for your work then it does not infringe the copyright holders' rights? This is completely baseless...

These two things that are quite distinct. Whether or not a work is not protected by copyright, it should not be counterfeiting.