[vunderba]

I'm not sure this really qualifies as anything new. It's been well known for a long time that many generative AI models are capable of reconstructing copyrighted works (copilot, SD, etc.) from their original training data with nearly 100% fidelity, but until we have a definitive legal ruling it doesn't really matter.

[everforward]

Somewhat unrelated, but I wonder if it makes a legal difference if the AI acts like a browser and goes out, finds and image and downloads it.

Basically the AI doesn't have a copyrighted image in its data set, but it will go grab YouTube screenshots or images from Google Images or something.

[stubish]

It would still be distributing copyrighted work, even if it doesn't store a copy at any stage. It would go the way of Napster.

[felipeerias]

Midjourney claims that you own all of the images it creates for you.

[sjfjsjdjwvwvc]

Is a definitive legal ruling even possible? Looking at music for example there are still many cases being fought over stolen melodies and that’s been a thing for generations.

I think it’s going to go a similar way with „AI“ - lots of court cases, lots of different and nuanced rulings converging on a general idea what the legal boundaries are but with many grey areas in between.

[Bjartr]

Which is genuinely the(US) legal system working as intended