Well, duh. The judge is helping out the plaintiffs in this case. A jury would have been easily convinced by the defense that no images produced by Stability's systems are visually derivative.

The key is indeed what follows:

The judge allowed Andersen to continue pursuing her key claim that Stability's alleged use of her work to train Stable Diffusion infringed her copyrights.

So unless there is some kind of summary judgement I would wager that this becomes the focus of both sides as this heads towards trial.

But that's it. As predicted by commentary from legal scholars, the outputs of Stable Diffusion are distinct from the model and are not infringing on copyright... at least for this complaint!