While no one was harmed in the direct creation of a generated video, can it not be argued that in order to train such a generative engine, it is highly likely t

While no one was harmed in the direct creation of a generated video, can it not be argued that in order to train such a generative engine, it is highly likely that harm-inducing content was produced/consumed at some stage? Where does the harm boundary lie? Is harm inflicted if an inanimate object is the only thing consuming the content? Is a generated video borne from harmful content an interest payment on your harm-capital? Meta, but interesting I wonder whether this train of thought would hold in a court of law...