[srg0]

Copyrighted material includes works by authors from outside the US. By Berne convention, the exceptions which any country may introduce must not "conflict with a normal exploitation of the work" and "unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author". So if at least one French author does license their work for AI training, then any exception of this kind will harm their legitimate interests and rob them of potential income from normal exploitation of the work.

If the US can harm authors from other countries, then other countries may be willing to reciprocate to American copyright holders, and introduce exceptions which allow free use of the US copyrighted material for some specific purposes they deem important.

IANAL, but it is a slippery slope, and it may hurt everyone. Who has more to lose?

And I hope that Mistral.AI takes note.

[thedevilslawyer]

> then any exception of this kind will harm their legitimate interests

Pray tell what legitimate interest of the author is harmed by LLM's training on that work? No one is publishing the authors book.

[pintxo]

The legitimate interest that there does not exist a tool that allows any random person to create art in the same style as she does? Which could arguably devalue their offering?

[thedevilslawyer]

No such interest has been granted by copyright. You can create a painting today in the style of any trending artist without issues.

[Palmik]

What I think the parent meant is the interest to sell license to others to train on their data.

[srg0]

Exactly. Some copyright holders do license their work for AI training. It certainly happens in the music industry, but I don't see why texts would be any different. The exception would harm their business.

[thedevilslawyer]

Example please? It's always been fair use to train on accessible data. It's how for eg: so much of research has been going on for decades.