I'm pretty specifically trying to bring to mind the time it takes to hone the skill. Photography is similar in that it takes many many hours to get to the point where you can produce a good work of art.

If an artist (or photographer) spends a couple hours on a peice, that's not the actual amount of time needed. It takes years to reach the point where they can make art in a few hours. That's what people are upset about, that's why nobody cares about "it took me hours to generate a good peice!", because it takes an artist 10,000 hours.

What AI art is doing is distilling that 10,000 hours (per artist) into a training set of 99% stolen works to allow someone with zero skill to produce a work of art in a few hours.

What's most problematic isn't who the copyright of the AI generated age belongs to, it's that artists who own their own works are having it stolen to be used in a commercial product. Go to any AI image generator, and you'll see "premium" options you can pay for. That product, that option to pay, only exists on the backs of artists who did not give licensing for their works, and did not get paid to provide the training data.