Actually, no. This is just another example of a headline leaving out important details of the actual case. In this case the plaintiff actually named the AI as the producer, not themselves. From the case:

"the sole issue of whether a work generated entirely by an artificial system absent human involvement"

This leaves a lot of wiggle room for AI created art with some form of human involvement. I.E. import the generated image into Photoshop and edit it. Perform some inpainting to improve certain parts. Possibly even prompting and configuring things in Automatic1111 might be regarded as human involvement.

This is going to bring many legal procedures before there's a clear answer to whether AI generated art can be copyrighted.