You can't counter someones argument by just saying the same thing you know. He brings up a good point as you can in fact argue your likeness in court.

This would likely require a court case but chances are the AI law would have to offer an exception to it.

Just because (autonomous) ai works cant be copyrighted doesnt mean it cant infringe on copy right.

But it does bring to mind who would be the offender?

Copyright is not ownership. You can own something, but not hold the copyright to it.

Personality rights are also not copyright and as the ruling was not about personality rights, it did not affect these rights (where they exist in the US). Disregarding both AI and the recent ruling, if someone takes a photograph of you, you do not hold the copyright to it, the photographer does. If the photographer then does something with that image that harms your reputation you may be able to sue.

And no, it is unlikely that there is a distinction between one's likeness and "AI generated likeness," it usually doesn't matter if you use a photograph or a drawing of an individual, it is the identity that is protected regardless of what tool was used.

At least in the USA: You absolutely can control the distribution of your likeness if it wasn't taken in public.

Photos of you in public can't be controlled because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. If someone takes a picture of you privately, even if not for commercial purposes, you can absolutely control the use of that image unless you release it.

Personality rights are not copyright. At all. It's just that simple. Entirely different branch of law, enforced at an entirely different level in the US (state-specific instead of federal). Something can be totally free of copyright while also still being illegal to distribute for entirely different reasons.