It's also just not fair, unless your going to rule that nothing an AI produces can be copyrighted. Otherwise some billionaire could just flood the office with copyrighted requests and copyrighted everything... hell if they really did that they would probably convince the government to let them hire outside contractors for free to speed up the process...

Is that intended as a legal or moral position?

As far as I know, the law doesn't care much if you make money off of IP violations. There are many cases of individuals getting hefty fines for both the personal use and free distribution of IP. I think if there is commercial use of IP the profits are forfeit to the IP holder. I'm not a lawyer though, so don't bank on that.

There's still the initial question too. At present, we let the courts decide if the usage, whether profitable or not, meets the standard of IP violation. Artists routinely take inspiration from one another and sometimes they take it too far. Why should we assume that AI automatically takes it too far and always meets the standard of IP violation?

Idk that feels like saying that as soon as you sell the skills you learned on YouTube, you should have to start paying the people you learned from, since you're "using" their copyrighted material to turn profit.

I don't agree whatsoever that copyright extends to inspiration of other artists/data models. Unless they recreate what you've made in a sufficiently similar manor, they haven't copied you.