[tiahura]

If your business model depends on the Roberts' court kneecapping AI, pivot. Training does not constitute "copying" under copyright law because it involves the creation of intermediate, non-expressive data abstractions that do not reproduce or communicate the copyrighted work's original expression. This process aligns with fair use principles, as it is transformative, serves a distinct purpose (machine learning innovation), and does not usurp the market for the original work.

[paranoidrobot]

I believe there are some other issues other than just "is it transformative".

I can't take an Andy Warhol painting, modify it in some way and then claim it's my own original work. I have some obligation to say "Yeah, I used a Warhol painting as the basis for it".

Similarly, I can't take a sample of a Taylor Swift song and use it myself in my own music - I have to give Taylor credit, and probably some portion of the revenue too.

There's also still the issue that some LLMs and (I believe) image generation AI models have regurgitated works from their training models - in whole or part.

[protocolture]

>I can't take an Andy Warhol painting, modify it in some way and then claim it's my own original work. I have some obligation to say "Yeah, I used a Warhol painting as the basis for it".

If you dont replicate Warhols painting entirely, then you are fine. Its original work.

The number of Scifi novels I read that are just an older concept reimagined with more modern characters is huge.

>I can't take an Andy Warhol painting, modify it in some way and then claim it's my own original work. I have some obligation to say "Yeah, I used a Warhol painting as the basis for it".

In most sane jurisdictions you can sample other work. Consider collage. It is usually a fair use exemption outside of the USA. If LLMs cause keyboard warriors to develop some seppocentric mindvirus leading to the destruction of collage I will be pissed.

>There's also still the issue that some LLMs and (I believe) image generation AI models have regurgitated works from their training models - in whole or part.

Considered a high priority bug and stamped out. Usually its in part because a feature is common to all of an artists work, like their signature.

[dwallin]

> I can't take an Andy Warhol painting, modify it in some way and then claim it's my own original work.

This is a hilarious choice of artist given that Warhol is FAMOUS for appropriating work of others without payment, modifying it in some way, and then turning around and selling it for tons of money. That was the entire basis of a lot of his artistic practice. There was even a Supreme Court case about it.

[mitthrowaway2]

There was a time when it did not usurp the market for the original work, but as the technology improves and becomes more accessible, that seems to be changing.

[toddmorey]

In my experience when existing laws allow an outcome that causes enough significant harm to groups with influence, the laws gets changed.

[23B1]

> Training does not constitute "copying" under copyright law

It should.