Your arguments do not make such a clear distinction. If uses before training all went through a Fair Use analysis, they *must* have been expressive. The fact downstream uses are potentially non-expressive helps the affirmative defense if defendants can provide proof.
@alexjc
-
Copyright Verdicts on AI Training and Fair Use Analysis
By
–
"essentially" doing a lot of heavy lifting. All the verdicts fell under Copyright law that's why they did the Fair Use analyses. Thus, it must have been expressive each time. Training often does capture expressions; verdict mentions this as "compressed copies". Keep up!
-
Training Data Copyright: Legal Analysis of AI Model Development
By
–
You speak in the future as if it didn't happen; deluding yourself? It did happen multiple times already and each time analysis was conducted under Copyright law. The uses before training were found to be expressive because all the work was used.
-
Copyright Fair Use Analysis in AI Model Training
By
–
You're confusing everything again, the reproductions before training and possible downstream uses. The downstream uses can potentially be non-expressive. If it was entirely non-expressive, it wouldn't fall under Copyright and there wouldn't have been Fair Use analysis needed.
-
Judge Alsup’s Copyright Analysis Better Than Judge Chhabria’s Approach
By
–
From that perspective, Judge Alsup did a much better job. He identified and pointed out the overwhelming number of reproductions (under Copyright law) and conducted his a Fair Use analysis trying to break them down separately. Judge Chhabria was much worse technically.
-
AI Training Now Legally Classified Under Copyright Law
By
–
Well, the overwhelming consensus is now that the activities around AI training fall under Copyright law. The "non-expressive use" folks always had a fringe opinion, but have lost. Not just caselaw but regulations codify it. There may be exceptions to the rule, but not important.
-
Legal Compliance for Protected Works in AI Systems
By
–
No need to engage on the legality debate in this petition, it's a complex assessment that depends on the context (like Fair Use). Instead maybe say "in order to check if use of protected works complies with the law, as there are strict conditions under which it is legal."
-
Copyright Verdicts on Training Data for AI Models
By
–
Hmm. The determination was already made that reproduction before training (downloading and storing books) already falls under Copyright by all recent verdicts. The pirate books were consistently found to be prima facie infringing, and one judge confirmed the infringement.
-
Copyright Infringement Claims in AI Model Training
By
–
Your claim would be that, in these cases, there is no prima facie infringement before training?
-
Copyright Infringement in AI Training: Market Harm Analysis
By
–
No, he's not. There was already infringement found for the reprductions during training (without outputs) or they wouldn't have done the four factor analysis. All he wants is for the evidence of market harm to be decided, for which burden to prove its absense is on defendant.