I believe what this ruling actually tries to defeat is an automated bulk art generation.
Just fire some H100 in a loop iterating over various ~random prompts, save it all on a website and then sue anyone producing anything remotely similar.
Problem is, bad actors will say all of this art was generated by a human with mere AI assistance.
God, I haven't even considered that. Design trolling! Prompt for an apple, iterate over all fashionable logo design styles, implicitly own the copyright all of them, then sit and wait. You're more likely to get a 'hit' as brand logos tend to be simple.
I would imagine that context matters a lot in trademark law and in design art though, since there's a lot of namespace collision in that domain. For there to be a violation of trademark or copyright, there needs to be a material loss or harm on the part of the owner of the copyrighted material, and it needs to be in the same space that the owner operates in.
Like if I generate a banana brand logo for my Banana Plumbing Co., and your AI generated similar banana line art prior, unless you were using it for plumbing it would (probably) be hard to enforce in court.
So towards preventing bulk image generation and trolling, I don't know if this ruling was especially necessary.
leaving the disadvantage of this ruling in that it encourages people to use AI as an excuse to sell like art? :D can't say I hate it though.
Just fire some H100 in a loop iterating over various ~random prompts, save it all on a website and then sue anyone producing anything remotely similar.
Problem is, bad actors will say all of this art was generated by a human with mere AI assistance.