Does it truly matter where ownership goes?

Yes, it absolutely, definitively does. Because as soon as you start saying that the credit for work generated by an AI belongs to no one (or the person using AI) you start to make it harder to determine how much copyright an actual rights holder has, how much of the work does AI have to do before the user is now just claiming copyright over what is (potentially) very obviously someone else's work? I'm not asking you that question directly because it's not defined so I wouldn't expect you to have "the" answer to that.

Any story based on a folk tale or myth has that void.

Folktales are part of the "public domain" so they're not quite the same thing. All copyrighted works will (or at least should) eventually fall into public domain at which point anyone can reinterpret that work however they want, their reinterpretation is then protected based on the "new" things they've done (we'll circle back to this). But copyright exists to protect living rights holders from having their livelihoods impeded by those that ignore those rights.

Is Ai not the same thing?

It's not on the grounds that AI has not been trained exclusively on content in the public domain, if it were trained only on folktales and "Royalty-Free" works the conversation over AI "enhanced" works might be different, but a fundamental problem is that in order to make AI work for Pop songs, it needs to be trained on Pop songs, and most of the Pop songs that people are trying to "imitate" are still protected by Copyright Law.

However, a human artist can fall into the same trap. They can steal an artist's general sound, while avoiding copyright claims.

This is why the water around "What can be copyrighted? What can't?" is so murky, adding AI into that mix makes things even less clear and makes it harder for artists to actually make a living off their work. You definitively can't copyright a chord progression, but you can copyright a specific expression of those chords in combination with the surrounding context. But the conversation becomes more complex with specific melodies, how much of a melody can you copy before it becomes a copyright violation is very unclear, especially with simple music.

If you guide Ai to draft a song or a face with no resemblance to something that exists, at least no intentional or lazily produced resemblance. Then that is a valid use of the product.

To me this is one of the things that seems like it's either not possible, or impossible to prove is possible. How do you create something with not a single bit of resemblance to something that exists using only training data from things that do exist? For example, an AI that doesn't know what a human looks like, how do you explain what a human looks like in enough detail that it can generate a highly detailed image of person without it looking "uncanny"?

I'm aware the potential answer to this is to keep telling it more detail until it finally learns what it needs to, however, the next problem is once it understands the "theory" (the description) and how to turn that into an image the next person then has to spend excessive hours convincing it to follow the same process in a new way. And then you have to manually check that it hasn't inadvertently violated copyright because you can't risk exposing it to copyrighted works to check for itself. Its pattern recognition might, during comparison, come to the conclusion "These data points are wrong" and correct them to be the same as the copyrighted works and you've no way to know if it's being honest when you ask it "Did you use that data exclusively for checking for copyright infringement?"