[vlovich123]

Apparently also anything training from it so DeviantArt (which reuploaded the model) and Midjourney (which sounds like it did a transference training) are involved.

The reason the lawsuit feels weird is that transformative use is pretty clearly fair use:

> In computer- and Internet-related works, the transformative characteristic of the later work is often that it provides the public with a benefit not previously available to it,

I mean if genAI isn't this I'm not sure what would be. The public gets a benefit of having a computer generate art from spoken speech and that requires quite a substantial transformation of a data corpus of labelled images.

Indeed, there's lots of art at Art Basel that depicts Disney characters in various ways to critique Disney & that's a much more direct copying of a different artists style (& even more direct trademark infringement). It really feels like artists are trying to have it both ways because this threatens their livelihood.

[cowboylowrez]

sure we get fair use when humans do it. if we give the same right to AI, why not let AI vote in elections too? This is easy, AI is not human. Once we start letting AI vote, whats to stop AI from concealed carry of weapons?

[vlovich123]

You seemed to have jumped off a cliff. Can’t follow your logic.

The copyright issues are between businesses for the most part. No one is suing AI. And the claim isn’t that AI is capable of generating copyrighted works. The claim is that the training of the AI used copyrighted materials which is infringement when it pretty clearly falls under transformative use.

And again, fair use applies to people and the businesses. I could maybe see your logic if you were ranting about businesses getting fair use protections and then getting a vote, but your moral panic about AI here is completely misplaced and seems to completely miss what the article is about and what my comment is trying to say.

[cowboylowrez]

You're very eager to focus on both my character (moral panic) and your inability to address my point (can't follow your logic). Maybe you can see my logic, maybe you can't. I'm also apparently suicidal lol. I think you should just ask for clarification instead of deliberately painting me as the bad guy.

Anyways, the transformative use has not been decided yet. I am also pretty sure that google books are not simply publishing entire works for free, as far as I can tell when books get published in electronic form in their entirety without the copyright owners permissions, things get dodgy. I don't remember reading a full book on google books unless the licensing was permissive or otherwise available. Is there not some limits on fair use? Why do I keep reading about these "libraries" getting shut down? What about all the sample clearing in the music business, are you somehow implying that doesn't exist? Heck, the "blurred lines" case failed because the guy merely mentioned the infringed work.

Furthermore, I view the AI thing as the AI proponents want to grant AI's "personhood," ie., just call them trained painters, trained authors, trained musicians, whatever, its not like I'm unable to see both sides of the arguments. Let the guy with the most silicon corner the market in these areas lol