I was about to say roughly the same thing.
While I feel for artists that will be losing out on funding like it used to work....this is just basically how things have always worked to date.
There very seldom is a truly original thought.
I've seen interviews of older artists like Keith Richards and he talks about the Stones early years and creative years and he freely admits they "lifted" licks, etc from their heroes before them, the old blues guys from the US south....Muddy, Robert Johnson, etc....and later Chuck Berry, etc.
That's how everyone did it...they took from the past and modified it for new content.
those old Blues masters they "lifted" from ....had lifted from those before them, EVERYONE has influences.
And with the AI stuff...in my head, unless they are just reprinting images or music or whatever as a direct copy to make money....it's fair game.
AI is trained much like our human brains are trained by ingesting what's around us by various methods and then, using that to come up with something new.
If I am inspired by Ansel Adams and maybe another photographer like Cartier-Bresson....and I come up with some photographs using elements I learned or was inspired from them...do I necessarily owe their estates money for my 'original' work that draws on their work from the past as long as it isn't basically a direct copy of their ideas?