Lets say I have an idea for a picture I want. I would like a teddy bear that is in the style of H.R. Giger. I a human write the prompt "style: h.r. giger, a teddy bear" and plug it into Stable Diffusion. I then generate 1000 images, it takes say an hour, and then I pick the one I like.
Now the counter example for our experiment. I have the same idea. I go to my community college and learn to draw (lets say I'm decently talented). I goto a book store, buy a book of H.R. Giger's art. Study that book and try to replicate it, eventually can do a passable copy. I then find a teddy bear, possibly also copyrighted. Then finally draw my teddy bear in the style of H.R. Giger.
Now I dont think most people would say the second example violates any laws and is fair use. You cannot copyright a style (although some lawsuits are moving forward for rap flow) to my knowledge. Yes I would be ridiculed by the art community as derivative. Its unlikely to end up in the Louvre, but could probably be put on a shirt and sold or whatever with minimal legal risk.
So why does the first example feel different then the second? I think it comes back to the process. I would describe them both as the same process but everything after the 'idea' and writing the prompt is just 'steps'. Yes they are steps we attach value to, such as learning to draw, and talent. But ultimately, the real creative thing was the 'idea'.
Another parallel we've experienced has kind of shown us the way. When the first spreadsheet came out it was very much a similar process. However, we don't see it as so as numbers generally aren't seen as creative expression. Never the less there was a desire to calculate someones net profits or whatever. Previously, there was large amounts of accountants, I'm sure with tribal knowledge about how to get this done using a bunch of chalkboards and double checking their work. Most trained on this and knew how to do this fastidiously. Then spreadsheets were invented and it saved them a ton of time. The tribal knowledge was not needed. Even a lay person who had a need to calculate 'net profits' could do that with a fraction of the work prior.
Final thought, if producing derivative works based on previous art becomes trivial. Then wont the artists who can actually create original works be far more valuable, if immediately copied? Perhaps a lot of the concern of this moment is artists seeing how much of what they produce, and actually sells, is really derivative to begin with...