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.
@alexjc
-
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.
-
Anthropic Case: Copyright Infringement Without Fair Use Defense
By
–
In the Anthropic case, the mere downloading & storage (i.e. reproduction) of a pirate work was infringing and not Fair Use. There is no derivative required, nor does it need to be published, nor sold to a buyer. The defendants need to prove absence of market harm either way!
-
Fair Use and Copyright Infringement in Generative AI Legal Cases
By
–
You're struggling! There is no second infringement required to justify the non-fair use of the first infringement. As per Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix, the burden of proof is on the defendants to show absence of market harms — not other way around. Grounds for appeal maybe…
-
Copyright and Data Protection in AI Training
By
–
1) Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Copyright doesn't protect bytes, electricity. 2) There are protected expressions in there that are valuable and sold as data. 3) There is infringement simply reproducing the work before training.
-
Cautious AI Communication: Legal Language vs Bold Influencer Claims
By
–
Of the options you suggest, I seriously doubt it's an "oversight" — but I guess you're writing threads more like a lawyer would than an influencer making bold statements.
-
Consent Foundations Commerce Creativity AI Prototypes
By
–
Well, consent is critical. Without consent you have no contracts, without contracts there's no commerce, without commerce no market. As for creativity, my prototypes have varied in usefulness… Regular software sometimes has added more to the creative process.