It’s going to raise some interesting issues when a studio decides to commision an AI programmer / artist to feed AI some exacting prompts to closely reproduce someobe else’s copyrighted work.

What is the difference if they hire someone to use photoshop to reproduce someone else's copyrighted work? Why would a case involving an AI be any different? Just because you create something and release it to the public domain does not mean you have the right to actually do that if what you created violates copyright.

It will also raise questions if an editor goes over AI created material and makes changes. Does he get to copyright it?

Same question can be applied to any public domain works. AI generated or not.

But also the articles title is wrong, AI generated works are not uncopyrightable - only ones that don't involve any human input (much like any other work that does not involve any human input).

Personally, I think no IP law is better than the system of IP laws we have (about which judges routinely make bad rulings out of ignorance). So I’ll be glad to see it broken. I creative commons my own stuff anyway.

I agree with this though. But this case does not break the system at all. It just re-enforces precedents that have already been established for non ai works - in that a human needs to be part of the creative process for the work to be copyrightable. Articles reporting on this case are just going for the most clickbait title they can.