It's still click-baity though. The US Copyright Office did not say "AI-Generated Images Do Not Qualify For Copyright Protection". It said that in this particular case, there wasn't enough evidence of creative authorship on the part of Kris Kashtanova in producing the images, so they could not register the copyright. That doesn't necessarily apply to all images generated by or with an AI model.

It does mean that people can't copyright something they made with a simple prompt that in itself wouldn't qualify for copyright, so I guess that's "news". It seems obvious to me, but perhaps not to some of the people calling themselves "AI artists". Now they know. But it's not a general decision, not even a court decision.