|
|
|
|
|
by unstablediffusi
376 days ago
|
|
their consent was not required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use petabytes of training data are transformed into mere gigabytes of model weights. no existing copyright laws are violated. until new laws declare that permission is required, this is a non-argument. >If this AI worked without training, no one would say anything. adobe firefly was trained on licensed content, and rest assured, the anti-AI zealots don't give it a pass. the copyright is just one of the many angles they use to decry the thing that threatens their jobs. |
|
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/judge-meta-case-wei...
> "You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products," Chhabria told Meta's attorneys. "You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person's work, and you're saying that you don't even have to pay a license to that person."
> "I just don't understand how that can be fair use," Chhabria said.
https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/12/copyright-office-weighs-ai...
> Stylistic imitation even without substantial similarity would likely be implicated under such a [market-dilution] theory, which could be considered as a market effect under factor four that diminishes the value of the original work used to train the model.