>>The artists argued they were entitled to copyrights for images they created with AI assistance -- unlike Thaler, who said that his "sentient" system created the image in his case independently.

That's a factually incorrect and legally inconvenient claim. Turns out you can convince the court of whatever you want if that means you lose your case:

"Yes your honour, I was both at my home and at the crime scene at the same time as I am omnipresent"

Doesn't mean alibis are no longer valid in court