None of the above. In the US, a judge cannot simply say "OK, we have moral rights in copyright now" -- only Congress has that power. And the court did not rule

None of the above. In the US, a judge cannot simply say "OK, we have moral rights in copyright now" -- only Congress has that power. And the court did not rule that the actress had "moral rights". Most of the time, when you create or take part in creating copyrighted work, for someone else, for pay, you do not hold the copyright to it. The person who paid you to do it gets the copyright, and this is called "work for hire". What the court ruled was that there may be a case to be made that this would not fall under "work for hire", and if so, that there might be a copyright claim the actress can assert to her work in the film. The main problem is that it appears to be a ludicrously-massive deviation from established precedent, and in US law courts at this level really do not get to do that, either.