AI vs the RIAA is going to be quite the fight. They're likely to argue that any algorithmic system which uses one of their works as input and produces something that sounds like it as an output is a derivative work.
IANAL, but that’s about as straightforward of a copyright violation as it gets. Doesn’t matter if it’s AI or not.
But as far as generative AI? That’s a way more interesting question. If I train a GAN to create original new songs, is it “sampling” songs in its training data, or is it “learning” from them and then transforming that information into something new? I would say the latter, but I’m sure the RIAA disagrees.
It’s not like a trademark, which you have to file for. It’s assumed protection.
Edit: after some quick googling, I think it’s inaccurate to call this “copyright” — “personality rights” or “publicity laws” are probably what protect people in this case? But overall, yes, appropriating someone else’s name, image, or likeness is illegal.
They MIGHT be protected under other laws.
This case is the closest the US has seen, but several features of it make it different than AI voices, most notably that an impersonator was hired to sing an artist's own song, so there's no room to say "it's just a coincidence".
Even if the AI is only used for lyrics as a voice filter, it's still quite close to the heart of the work.
Then you have its market effect, where original artists will face a heavy economic impact from the infringement (if that's what the courts rule).
That's just my prediction, but I have limited experience in the area.
And much simpler, too; I don't think anyone would regard Spotify's Discover Weekly as artificial intelligence.