Incorrect. In the absence of new legislation case law is how these things get worked out, but new statutes could be passed and could void prior case law.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf

Let me expand on this a bit... if you read through the text (feel free to search for the below terms) of the current laws around copyright you will notice that there is no discussion of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction

These legal doctrines are the result of the details are hashed out in case law.

This is distinct from countries that use civil law jurisprudence. Common law jurisprudence relies heavily on case law.

Funny way to admit that your original statement was flat-out wrong.

There is no separate "civil law jurisprudence" and "common law jurisprudence". Common law by itself is by definition not jurisprudence. Civil law combines aspects of statutory and common law (as one form of precedent) into a single system. Some aspects of common law even make their way into criminal law. Instead of just Googling for buzzwords, learn what they mean before you try to bluster your way through an argument with them.

The law moves slow. Even were that to happen eventually, the laws will very likely be challenged in courts, and those will take a while to be resolved.

Finally, even if the US outlaws this, there'll be plenty of other countries where it'll be legal. There's plenty of infringement of US copyright in China, for instance. The same is likely to happen in regards to AI that's illegal in the US but legal elsewhere.

By the time the law catches up, model creation may become so easy to create by individuals instead of just by deep-pocketed corporations, it may be practically impossible to stop.