No, I am just narrowing down the problem definition to the actual damage.

Which is a very fair use and copyright respecting approach.

Taking/obtaining value from works is ok, up until the point where damage to the value of original works happen. And that is not ok. Because copyright protects that value to incentivize the creation and sharing of works.

The problem is that models are shipping that inherently make it easy to reproduce copyrighted works, and apply specific styles lifted from single author's copyrighted bodies of work.

I am very strongly against this.

Note that prohibiting copying of a recognizable specific single author's style is even more strict than fair use limits on humans. Stricter makes sense to me, because unlike humans, models are mass producers.

So I am extremely respectful of protecting copyright value.

But it is not the same thing as not training on something. It is worth exploring training algorithms that can learn useful generalities about bodies of work, without retaining biases toward the specifics of any one work, or any single authored style. That would be in the spirit of fair use. You can learn from any art, if it's publicly displayed, or you have paid for a copy, but you can't create mass copiers of it.

Maybe that is impossible, but I doubt it. There are many ways to train that steer important properties of the resulting models.

Models that make it trivial to create new art deco works, consistent with the total body of art deco works, ok. Models that make it trivial to recreate Erte works, or with an accurately Erte style specifically. Not ok.