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.
REGULATION
-
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.
-
California, Colorado, Utah Pass AI Regulation Laws
By
–
Context: California, Colorado and Utah have each already passed new state laws to regulate automated decision-making systems, generative AI systems and/or synthetic content. Most states have AI-related bills in progress, mostly at earlier stages in the legislative process.
-
Civil Liberties Groups Oppose AI Ban Proposals
By
–
Civil liberties organizations, the National Conference of State Legislatures and a bipartisan group of state attorneys general, and other have opposed both the 10-year AI ban and the 5-year version.
-
Senate Amendment Seeks Strip AI Consumer Protection Five-Year Compromise
By
–
Big update on the budget reconciliation provision that would ban states and local governments from creating or enforcing AI-related consumer protections. Senators @SenMarkey and @SenatorCantwell had already filed their own amendment today to strip the 5-year compromise.
-
Audiobook Production: A Deliberate Act of Resistance Against AI Imperialism
By
–
This was something I discussed a lot with my audiobook producer. It only felt right in the context of a book critiquing the imperial nature of AI development. A small act of resistance. Thank you so much for noticing! You can find the audiobook here: https://
penguinrandomhouse.com/books/743569/e
mpire-of-ai-by-karen-hao/
…