> A common defense claims that the model learns from the training set the same way a human student would, implying human rules (presumably with human exceptions

> A common defense claims that the model learns from the training set the same way a human student would, implying human rules (presumably with human exceptions) should apply to its output. This can seem like a reasonable argument in passing, but besides being plain wrong, it's too facile since DALL-E is not human-like. This is nowhere near enough to refute the idea that human rules on fair use should also apply to works you create using DALL-E. The fact that DALL-E can't own the output is irrelevant. Firstly, the human operator can quite happily claim ownership of the output. Secondly, I don't see how ownership of the output is even related to whether the training data was used fairly.