[pfist]

Therein lies the crux of the issue: AI is not “someone”. We need to approach this without anthropomorphizing the AI.

[Almondsetat]

You are right, AI is nothing but a tool akin to a pen or a brush.

If you draw Mickey Mouse with a pencil and you publish (and sell) the drawing who is getting the blame? Is the pencil infringing the copyright? No, it's you.

Same with AI. There is nothijg wrong with using copyrighted works to train an algorithm, but if you generate an image and it contains copyrighted materials you are getting sued.

[ufocia]

But there is. You are arguably making unauthorized copies to train.

[Almondsetat]

Unauthorized copies? If the images are published on the internet how is it downloading them "unauthorized"?

[__loam]

Publicly available doesn't mean you have a license to do whatever you like with the image. If I download an image and re-upload it to my own art station or sell prints of it, that is something I can physically do because the image is public, but I'm absolutely violating copyright.

[Almondsetat]

That's not an unautharized copy, it's unauthorized distribution. By the same metric me seeing the image and copying it by hand is also unauthorized copy (or reproduction is you will)

[xigoi]

IANAL, but I’m pretty sure copying an image by hand is copyright violation.

[huytersd]

If you are viewing the image on your browser on a website, you are making a local copy. That’s not unauthorized.

[pixl97]

Companies aren't someone, yet in the US we seem to give them rights of someone.

[ufocia]

They are someone in the eyes of the law. They just have a different set of rights.