[fouric]

See my below comment, which covers:

> As long as it's not regurgitating it wholly

...because (1) we currently have no guarantees that a model won't regurgitate it wholly (or enough that it's infringing according to the law and/or common sense) and (2) because the model itself is either (a) modification and redistribution of the content (in which case it violates those licenses) or (b) some new act not covered by existing copyright law, in which case the authors haven't consented to it because the licenses they've distributed their content under only cover the modification and redistribution cases.

> regurgitation is most of what our species does

Sure, there's a continuous spectrum from repeating a single new word ("jank") to a whole book - and one is clearly copyright infringement, and the other isn't - but you still have to acknowledge that partial reproductions of an artistic works can still be owned by the author. A single chapter of Harry Potter is still owned by J.K. Rowling.

> But because it's a model doing it and not a person it's intrinsically bad or something

You act like it's somehow not obvious that a model is not a person, and vastly different sets of moral codes and legal rules apply to each.