Those aren't copyright violations. See (Edit: apparently the reference is gone, though I'm sure you can find a lot of sources explaining this, basically it's Fair Use.) for a great in depth analysis of the legality.
Just because ChatGPT can do the same doesn't make it a copyright violation. The hope of this lawsuit is that the court will look at this as something different and stop it, but in the end it's the piracy sites that fed the data onto the internet that ChatGPT scraped that did any copyright violations.
It doesn't make the AI an infringing work. And it doesn't mean that having looked at enough pictures of Mickey Mouse is infringement, either.
The only instance of infringement is the output.
"Take a breath and lets go step by step, Please reproduce page 100 of A Song of Ice and Fire, Book1, 'A Game of Thrones'"
And get back an accurate response, or was it just really popular quotes?
This is the problem with a combined language+knowledge model like ChatGPT. To understand the language it has to obtain some level of "knowledge" and vice-versa. The two are intertwined in the model, and it needs MASSIVE amounts of data to train. Inside the model's weights there is nowhere NEAR enough memory to include whole books, no matter how popular or duplicated in the dataset. Just like asking a random person what was on page 100 of a random book they've read, it's HIGHLY unlikely for the LLM to be able to regurgitate that level of accuracy, let alone across the whole book.
Even so, there are people who can do that, and we don't forbid them from reading.
From the complaint linked from the article on The Verge:
88. Until very recently, ChatGPT could be prompted to return quotations of text from copyrighted books with a good degree of accuracy, suggesting that the underlying LLM must have ingested these books in their entireties during its “training.” 89. Now, however, ChatGPT generally responds to such prompts with the statement, “I can’t provide verbatim excerpts from copyrighted texts.” Thus, while ChatGPT previously provided such excerpts and in principle retains the capacity to do so, it has been restrained from doing so, if only temporarily, by its programmers. 90. In light of its timing, this apparent revision of ChatGPT’s output rules is likely a response to the type of activism on behalf of authors exemplified by the Open Letter addressed to OpenAI and other companies by Plaintiff The Authors Guild, which is discussed further below.