The whole article is loaded with interesting points. Much of this related to the Warhol Foundation decision. Which is also complicated by the results which are mixed.

This case, and artist used an image, to create a tattoo. The photographer sued. Both at this point are claiming that the Warhol decision should be grounds for summary resolution, in the matter.  The most recent decision, the judge has sent the case to the jury.

Seizing on the new Supreme Court decision, Sedlik argues that �Warhol clarified that photographers routinely license their creative works to serve as reference for other artists, and that such artists� reference licenses are how photographers make their living.� Artists references, does that apply to AI?

https://copyrightlately.com/court-to-revisit-fair-use-in-tattoo-infringement-case/

And while I'm typing:  https://copyrightlately.com/making-sense-of-copyright-fair-use-after-warhol/  a breakdown of the decision and situation, Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith.