3 ms·

> Authors Guild v Google and then present evidence of significant non-infringing commercial use. The problem as I understand it is in all the likely "precedent

> Authors Guild v Google and then present evidence of significant non-infringing commercial use. The problem as I understand it is in all the likely "precedent" cases for this, what was being done with the scraped data was in some identifiable way different than the purpose of the source data itself. Authors Guild v Google for instance, the argument was that Google wasn't reproducing whole texts, it just used that data to make the texts searchable. Meaning the purpose of the consumption of the text by Google was to essentially make a searchable index, rather than to reproduce a book, and thus that isn't harming the authors. In this case, it would seem a very key difference is that this is Art being consumed and Art being produced, with no different purpose.

williamcotton 4y ago
> In this case, it would seem a very key difference is that this is Art being consumed and Art being produced, with no different purpose. Sure, I mean, anyone can sit on the sidelines and imagine any sort of fantasy legal doctrines. The one you’re imagining would have the courts deciding the purpose of art works. In this case an example is easy. If someone uses Stable Diffusion to remove a person from the background of an image they are clearly using the tool for a separate purpose than copying Sarah Anderson’s works and making competing desk calendars. But I guess your silly argument is that the doctored photograph is a “picture” and Sarah Anderson made “pictures” and all pictures have the purpose of “being looked at” and you want courts to decide this based on this reasoning?