Depends on the purpose of the algorithm. If the
purpose of the
algorithm is, for instance, to simulate as accurately as possible the
curvature of earth, then while the algorithm itself might be creative,
and worthy of copyright, the resulting output wouldn't be. (If the
purpose of the algorithm is to make a pretty picture, then it probably
would be.)
It sounds like you're saying copyright depends on the intention of the
creator - I'm not sure that's true. If the output is the same, it
shouldn't matter if it was intended to be an accurate representation
or intended to look pretty. It's the same piece of work, created the
same way, so it has the same copyright.
Would you say
a painting made using a rubber stamp wasn't creative because anyone
can cover stamps in paint and put them on a piece of paper? The
creativity comes in making the stamp, and so, what you make with that
stamp is copyrightable.
A painting made using a rubber stamp is a copy of the stamp. Not all
output from computer algorithms are copies of that algorithm.
Would you say a photograph made using a camera was copyrighted by the
person who wrote the firmware on the camera (the image stabilization
algorithm, the sharpening algorithm, etc.)? Of course not. The
algorithm is likely copyrighted by the programmer (the standard for
creativity in computer software is unfortunately very low), but that
doesn't mean the output of the software is copyrighted by the
programmer.
Yeah, it's a bad analogy. Sorry.