wait didnt the courts already rule that AI art cant be copyrighted?? so isnt this whole thing already illegal and were arguing about nothing

Two different questions that sound identical — easy to tangle. What the courts said is that AI *output* usually can't get copyright *protection*, because protection requires a human author. That's about what comes *out*. This debate is about the *input* — whether training on copyrighted work going *in* was lawful. A model can be trained perfectly legally and still produce images nobody can copyright. Same technology, opposite ends of the pipe.