> AI companies could very reasonably argue that use of images for training AI models is transformative and qualifies as fair use Yep. They could. And people do

> AI companies could very reasonably argue that use of images for training AI models is transformative and qualifies as fair use Yep. They could. And people do. But this particular use is entirely new, though. Old conceptions of fair use can't and shouldn't cover it. "Transformative"? Sure, but there's a difference between transforming a work once and laying hold of it in automation to be transformed on request millions or billions of times in degrees ranging from simple to convoluted. It's hard to argue that the right to this exists in fair use when awareness of the possibility didn't exist when fair use conceptions were constructed. The output isn't the issue so much as the consent & consideration for use of the input. We'll need case law or statutory law that understands this. It should be possible, but it should be possible on an opt-in basis. When you're training a model, you should know. > AI-generated images are no more infringing than human-generated images which show influences from other artists. If we end up with a policy differentiating the two and privileging humans and works created by them, I'm fine with that.