| HN Mirror

> If you go and study a work of fiction in a college class, unless that material is in the public domain, you're gonna have to pay for your copy,

No you wont!

It is only someone who distributes copies who can get in trouble.

If instead of that you as an individual decide to study a piece of art or fiction, and you do no distribute copies of it to anyone, this is completely legal and you don't have to pay anyone for it.

In addition to that, fair use protections apply regardless of what the creative works creator wants.

Making a profit off variations of someone's work isn't covered under fair use.

boolemancer 887 days ago

That's not a fair statement to make. It can influence a judge's decision on whether something is fair use, but it can still be fair use even if you profit from it.

The doctrine of fair use presupposes that the defendant acted in good faith.

- Harper & Row, 105 S. Ct. at 2232

- Marcus, 695 F.2d 1171 at 1175

- Radji v. Khakbaz, 607 F. Supp. 1296, 1300 (D.D. C.1985)

- Roy Export Co. Establishment of Vaduz, Liechtenstein, Black, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcastinig System, Inc., 503 F. Supp. 1137 (S.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd, 672 F.2d 1095 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826, 103 S. Ct. 60, 74 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1982)

Copying and distributing someone else's work, especially without attributing the original, to make money without their permission is almost guaranteed to fall afoul of fair use.

Gotcha.

I wasn't talking about someone creating and selling copies of someone else's work, fortunately.

So my point stands and your completely is in agreement with me that people are allowed to learn from other people's works. If someone wants to learn from someone else's work, that is completely legal no matter the licensing terms.

Instead, it is only distributing copies that is not allowed.

AI isn't a human. It isn't "learning"; instead, it's encoding data so that it may be reproduced in combination with other things it has encoded.

If I paint a painting in the style of Monet, then I would give that person attribution by stating that. Monet may have never painted my artwork, but it's still based on that person's work. If I paint anything, I can usually point to everything that inspired me to do so. AI can't do that (yet) and thus has no idea what it is doing. It is a printer that prints random parts of people's works with no attribution. And finally, it is distributing them to it's owner's customers.

I actually hope that true AI comes to fruition at some point; when that happens I would be arguing the exact opposite. We don't have that yet, so this is just literally printing variations of other people's work. Don't believe me, try running an AI without training it on other people's work!

Thiez 887 days ago

Every waking second humans are training on what they see in their surroundings, including any copyrighted works in sight. Want to compare untrained AI fairly? Compare their artistic abilities with a newborn.

No. That is NOT what humans do unless you somehow learn grammar without going to school. Most of a human's childhood is spent learning from their parents so that they can move about and communicate at least a little effectively. Then, they go to school and learn rules, social, grammar, math, and so forth. There's some learning via copyrighted works (such as textbooks, entertainment, etc.), but literally, none of this is strictly required to teach a human.

Generative AI, however, can ONLY learn via the theft of copyrighted works. Whether this theft is covered under fair use is left to be seen.

dehrmann 887 days ago

Right, but there's also fair use, and every use I mentioned could plausibly fall under that.

There's no such thing as fair use until you get to court (as a legal defense). Then, the court decides whether it is fair use or not. They may or may not agree with you. Only a court can determine what constitutes fair use (at least in the US).

So, if you are doing something and asserting "fair use," you are literally asking for someone to challenge you and prove it is not fair use.

> There's no such thing as fair use until you get to court (as a legal defense)

Well the point is that it wouldn't go to court, as it would be completely legal.

So yes, if nobody sues you, then you are completely in the clear and aren't in trouble.

Thats what people mean by fair use. They mean that nobody is going to sue you, because the other person would lose the lawsuit, therefore your actions are safe and legal.

> you are literally asking for someone to challenge you and prove it is not fair use.

No, instead of that, the most likely circumstance is that nobody sues you, and you aren't in trouble at all, and therefore you did nothing wrong and are safe.

> as it would be completely legal.

Theft is never legal; that's why you can be sued. "Fair use" is a legal defense in the theft of copyrighted works.

> They mean that nobody is going to sue you, because the other person would lose the lawsuit

That hasn't stopped people from suing anyone ever. If they want to sue you, they'll sue you.

> and therefore you did nothing wrong and are safe.

If you steal a pen from a store, it's still theft even if nobody catches you; or cares.

sgift 887 days ago

> Theft is never legal; that's why you can be sued.

That's incorrect. You can be sued for anything. If it is theft or something else or nothing is decided by the courts.

That is entirely my point. It can only be decided by the courts. This being a civil matter, it has to be brought up by a lawsuit. Thus, you have to be sued and it has to be decided by the courts.

> If you steal a pen from a store

Fortunately I am not talking about someone illegally taking property from someone else.

Instead I am talking about people taking completely legal actions that are protected by law.

> in the theft of copyrighted works

Actually, it wouldn't be theft if it was done in fair use. Instead it would be completely legal.

If nobody sues you and proves that it was illegal then you are completely safe, if you did this in fair use.

Did you read anything I wrote? If you are going to argue, it would be worth at least researching your opinion before writing. Caps used for emphasis, not yelling.

Firstly: Copyrighted work IS THE AUTHOR'S PROPERTY. They can control it however they wish via LICENSING.

Secondly: You don't have any "fair use rights" ... there is literally NO SUCH THING. "fair use" is simply a valid legal defense WHEN YOU STEAL SOMEONE'S WORK WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.