[crazygringo]

> I do get to decide what happens with it.

No. Both legally and practically, you absolutely do not.

The only thing copyright law gives you is an exclusive right to sell it for a limited period of time, as a whole in its original form or similar -- and to transfer that right.

Regardless of your desires, anyone can reuse it under the conditions of fair use. They can copy parts of it for parody purposes. If they're not selling anything or taking away from your sales*, they can reproduce it verbatim for private purposes. And even if they are selling something, they can summarize it, quote from it, rephrase it, and so forth.

And you don't actually get to decide any of that.

* Edit: added "or..."

[chasing]

So you’re saying I’m right except in some narrowly carved-out situations. And I agree with you.

[crazygringo]

Nope. You said:

> I wasn't asked and I don't really care to donate work to large corporations like that... I do get to decide what happens with it.

And I said:

> No. Both legally and practically, you absolutely do not.

You think you get to decide whether large corporations can train on your work. I'm saying the the law suggests you very much don't get to decide that.

[chasing]

Read the comments you're replying to. I didn't comment on the legality of ChatGPT training on my content, I said I didn't like it. Regardless, the act of posting content publicly does not mean I give up my copyright claim. Yes, there are fair use situations. Training ChatGPT might be one of them, but I'm not seeing lot of concrete information one way or the other and I am seeing arguments that ChatGPT could be considered a derivative work, which would place OpenAI in violation of my copyright.

Send some links if you see some definitive case law sorting this stuff out.

[meithecatte]

You are claiming that piracy is legal.