You can make sure the people from which their jobs where taken by an AI should be able to live from its proceeds. We all benefit and make progress.
Attaching costs to technology in an effort to make sure the people from which their jobs where taken by an AI should be able to live from its proceeds is going to slow down advancement at best. There's also a real chance that it pushes investment and usage away from the things that get those people paid (such as public domain training materials), meaning that the whole attempt fails and the people lose their jobs anyway without getting paid.
In my opinion, I'm not conflating these two things by accident. I'm looking at how things are likely to be done and considering probable consequences.
There's a very real chance that adding these costs on top will drive development away from the sort that pays the people who lose out. For example, attempting to require licensing for images may simply push model training towards public domain materials. Then the models still work and the usable commercial art is still generated cheaply, but there are no living artists getting paid.
We should not blithely assume an ideal option that makes everyone happy is readily available or even at all. The core incentive of a lot of users is to spend less on commercial imagery. The core incentive of artists is to get paid at least as much as before. We should take seriously the possibility that there is not a medium in there that satisfies everyone.
I'll go so far as to say that in many cases, displaying empathy for the artists without also advocating for futile efforts to halt the progress of this technology will be regarded as a lack of empathy.