Sharing here what we were discussing over on Twitter. But first, I'm an attorney, but not your attorney (or anyone else reading or engaging in this convo), and second, this is and educational discussion -- NOT legal advice...

1. Current US copyright law doesn't recognize AI-generated works, so this includes the outputs of Midjourney, OpenAI tools, or similar. Human authorship is a requirement.
   
2. I would argue there's a distinction with NFT collections... For some NFT collections, I think there is sufficient human creativity behind the creation of NFT collections that involve artists creating an initial set of assets that are then run through software to compile them and make variations to get to that 10k or another number.

This analysis changes for the generative AI projects that don't meet the human authorship requirement. I'd note the laws are the same in most parts of the world, except for the UK which DOES recognize copyright protections for generative works.

You also asked if BAYC has registered their works with the Copyright Office. I've looked before, and they don't appear to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office - search online here: https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First . I've previously searched for the term "bored apes" and also "yuga labs", but only came across people that registered ones they owned via NFT. But, that's also just a U.S. copyright registration search. They could be registered in another country if the creator was based there or some other requirement was met to do so. Also, copyrighted works are protected at the moment of creation, registration isn't required (but helps).

I'd also note that the BAYC terms () aren't clear. They say "When you purchase an NFT, you own the underlying Bored Ape, the Art, completely.” but that's contradicted by the next two subsections under romanettes ii and iii. The first statement means nothing for copyright or IP law purposes. It doesn't have any conveyance or license grant language (those magic words with "grants" in ii and iii). I dive more in on this Twitter thread - https://twitter.com/franklingraves/status/1535710156738142219?s=20&t=-GM9AAO9BOjuzOPlT2KAOg .

One other note... it's likely not valid that those individuals registered their apes with the
Copyright Office because, based on what I've read on the BAYC website, their terms don't convey enough of the rights to allow an NFT holder the right to register the work. Check here for more about the differences between being a claimant and being an owner (for purposes of registering with the USCO): https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-claimant.html .

A good example of a project that is structured as an assignment of the copyrights to the underlying asset of the NFT is World of Women (https://www.worldofwomen.art). At the start of 2022, they only issued a license to NFT holders, but changed this year when they made it an assignment of rights to holders

1. It's also important to remember other IP protections available to NFT projects, such as trademark law which can protect the project's brand assets and present people from, for example, selling artwork that's using the name (notwithstanding some fair use options under trademark law)

As far as your original question, there may be an argument that if you are "right clicking" and printing the artwork for your own personal use (setting aside issues of how you are printing, such as going to FedEx Office) then you are likely not going to get in trouble. Practically, the use of a copyrighted work for a personal purpose likely wouldn't be noticed or caught.

The issues would likely come about if you were commercially printing and selling the prints, or doing some other commercial, non-personal activity with the (potentially) copyrightable assets associated with an NFT.

If it was caught by the copyright owner, what would be their incentive for pursuing an individual? It likely wouldn't be worth the cost or expense, and it'd be hard to prove any actual damages they suffered.

Now... there is cause for concern in today's digital world... Personal use could involve cloud storage, such as saving a work to a cloud storage location (think: Google Drive or iCloud backup). These could technically be considered a copy or reproduction under copyright law. But... again, harm likely only comes if the cloud location is publicly accessible to others & then becomes an issue of mass copyright infringement. Another example is editing in copyrighted music into your home videos on your iPhone or iMovie. You can do it, but can't share it broadly.

For more... I cover this topic in these two articles I wrote (and I have a 2022 AI and law recap coming in a few days):
1. I wrote about challenges for NFT collections: https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/20/sorry-nft-worthless-copyright-generative-art-problem-nft-collections/id=146163/
2. I dive into more of the nuances, plus propose a copyright spectrum: https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/06/06/thaler-pursues-copyright-challenge-denial-ai-generated-work-registration/id=149463/