All those tools have randomization so they don't produce the exact same image for the exact same prompt.
The value of an image produced by AI is very low because the cost to produce it is very low.
No point in committing federal fraud by falsely claim you made them.
> no one can dispute that
Of course I can dispute that.
I can even prove you didn't make the AI image by asking you to produce a work of similar quality under supervision.
If all you can do is type AI prompts into a computer, good luck producing an actual painting.
Even now, when it takes a lot more human effort to generate an image because It has to be done by a human, the courts are ineffective at stopping the rampant and blatant copyright infringement that happens daily on a truly massive scale on the internet.
Now that the floodgates of creativity have been opened by AI, the amount of content being generated is going to exponentially increase, and all the laws and courts in the world are not going to be able to even slow it.
Have you ever seen a court do anything even remotely similar to this other than in Hollywood movies? Not only would there be serious freedom of expression/compelled speech aspects to doing that, it would be entirely impractical and ultimately prove nothing.