It was a mistake to accept the validity of Aquinas and Hobbes arguments because we end up with conclusions like this. The concept of intellectual property is a legal fiction, a fabrication invented from whole cloth and somehow we've ended up here where it's assumed part of the natural universe.
When we reverse the direction of laws from being products of human creation to reflecting the laws of the universe we're forgetting the power of their authors and in turn giving up one our agency in drafting laws from myriad possibilities, any number of which, if had been picked by chance, would have been equally erased in authorship and told to us was a natural, universal, unstoppable law.
The reason I said it is unstopable is not because of a philosophical/deterministic argument. It was a figure to speech to verbalize the fact that the incentives are so strong for allowing AI to use copyright data that going against it would be a societal backwards decision. Similar to what avoiding agriculture was for previous societies that don't exist anymore.
Generating images in the style of an artist is not a violation of copyright.
Generating copies of copyrighted images is a violation of copyright.
AI companies only have to address the last point here, which frankly shouldn't be too hard.