None of that is what copyright protects. And it lessens the argument when you can argue that LLMs are essentially stealing a human art's work to be used to generate cheap images. Similar to how if you took commissioned art, printed out 1000 copies, and sold them for $1 a piece.

Copyright means that you need to at least pay that artist you stole from in some way, which the government enforces so artists don't stop creating.

How do you know what the value of the art will be before it's created? Guns N' Roses is a top 40 artist on Spotify nearly 35 years after producing an album. Should they not have been paid after 1991? If you argue that they were a popular band and therefore should have been paid accordingly up front, well what about their debut record, which sold 30 million copies? How would you predict that value before its creation (or even after)? If you're saying that only the labor has value, and all labor is valued equally, that sounds sort of like marxism, which could be fine, but it's hard to say how well artists would be supported in that case.

In the US, the original copyright length was 14 years, and then 28, and eventually the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. I think the intent of the law is economically justified, but the current length is outrageous.