[Archipelagia]

It kind of seems like an intimidation tactic. Not too many artists will be willing to claim copyright infringement, if they can get hit with a suit in response. And in the meantime, they cab happily continue training their model on whatever they want.

[prepend]

This is like people filing bogus dcma takedowns on YouTube videos. The photographer doesn’t have a valid claim, yet continues to file claims knowing that he doesn’t.

What other remedy does the site have?

People can’t train modes on whatever they want. They can train models on whatever is legally available. If I set up a photography site and post images for the entire world to see, then the entire world can see them. Including model trainers.

[Waterluvian]

Digital historians in the year 2300: “we don’t know who Getty Inages is, but his name shows up in a lot of pictures.

[anon84873628]

Well if a work is copyrighted does that make it "legally available" for training models?

Does the answer depend on to what degree the model can end up reproducing the work?

[Kim_Bruning]

Those are indeed open legal questions which are yet to be litigated. The answer is not clear cut!

[gwd]

On the other hand, assuming that the following are true:

* The activity "has been expressly permitted by the European legislator"

* The person in question continued to threaten / press legal action

Doesn't it make sense to be able to ask for damages? IOW, shouldn't we be intimidating people against making baseless legal threats?

Obviously if either of the above two are false, then the legal firm in question are in violation of professional ethics and need to be hauled up before the German equivalent of the Bar Association.