I believe that as the article says despite the headline this case was specifically about a situation where a computer scientist wanted to list the AI as the one creating the work. The case doesn't examine an argument that things can be copyrighted when a human is involved either by filtering the output or even just by developing the algorithm involved and thus the human is the artist and the AI is just a tool. I think what's clear is that legally AI can't itself create a copy righted work just like a camera can't be listed as the author of a work, but it's not clear if a human using AI as a tool either through prompting or filtering counts as a creative act under copyright or if AI generated creations count as derivative works of the models weights.