[kg]

Google is not presently selling "we trained an AI on people's art without permission, and you can type their name in along with a prompt to generate a knockoff of their art, and we charge you money for this". So it's not really a 1:1 comparison, since there are companies selling the thing I described right now.

[luma]

That pretty clearly would fall under transformative work. It is not illegal for a human to paint a painting in the style of, say, Banksy, and then sell the resulting painting.

[kg]

Humans and AI are not the same thing, legally or physically. The law does not currently grant AI rights of any kind.

[luma]

If a human isn't violating the law when doing that thing, then how is the machine violating the law when it cannot even hold copyright itself?

[estebank]

In some locales sitting on the street writing down a list of people coming and going is legal, but leaving a camera pointed at the street isn't. Legislation like that makes a distinction between an action by a person (which has bounds on scalability) and mechanized actions (that do not).

[kg]

I'm not sure how to explain this any clearer: Humans and machines are legally distinct. Machines don't have the rights that humans have.

[Ukv]

Fair Use is the relevant protection and is not specific to manual creation. Traditional algorithms (e.g: the snippets, caching, and thumbnailing done by search engines) are already covered by it.

[ufocia]

What's not prohibited is allowed, at least in the US.