Why isn't the solution a strong disclaimer when the user generates images along the lines of "beware that the images produced may not comply with copyright laws in your country" etc etc?

Any artist can privately draw a picture of Mario, what's so different about having an LLM generate that image?

But how is that any different from creating an image from scratch? If I make a logo and use it for my business, but it turns out to be very similar to one already being used by another company, it’s the same situation.

I think the main concern here is with the top 1,000 or so brands/copyrights which seem fairly straightforward to deal with using the method I described.

AIUI/IIUC/IANAL, Generative AI systems stack up tuned butterfly effects to create meaningful outputs. Which means, data is not merely stored inside a butterfly but spread across the system, and potentially every output from the butterfly cage is infringing everything, just almost negligibly. But no one can prove that or otherwise to be the case with current technology.

I think it's just unfixable as far as fixing goes. The "best" way is to nuke all GPTs and DALL-Es and bury the technology, and the next best is to mark them all un-copyrightable and un-publishable as a compromise. This second option should be an all-around win that also encourages edge and on-prem deployments, IMO.