All these articles seem to refer to the Thaler v. Perlmutter case. Which did not conclude that AI-genreted art cannot be copyrighted. It concluded that AI art generated without any human involvement cannot be copyrighted. Which is a big difference.
IMO a far more damning case is Zarya of the Dawn copyright claim that was rejected by the copyright offices. (Not sure if this case was contested in court). This one explicitly states that prompts used to generate AI images are not a good enough for a copyright claim as the output of the AI generator is not predictable and it can easily generate things you did not intend even if it is guided by your prompt. So they are more suggestions and not influential enough for a claim to copyright.
That is far more damning than what the case this article is talking about. But that is just what the copyright office says, not what judges have ruled on yet.