If training a model is fair use than model output should also fallow fair use criteria. The very first thing you can find on the internet about fair use is Wiki

If training a model is fair use than model output should also fallow fair use criteria. The very first thing you can find on the internet about fair use is Wikipedia article on the topic. It lists a bunch of factors to decide whether something is fair use. The very first one has a quote from an old copyright case: > [A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy. Most use of LLMs and image generation models do not produce criticism of their training data. The most common use is to produce similar works. You can find this very common “trick” to get a specific style of output to add “in style of <artist>”. Is this a direct way "to supersede the use of the original work”? You can certainly see how other factors more or less put gen ai output into the grey zone. The fact that clothing doesn’t qualify for copyright doesn’t mean text and images don’t. Or if you advocate that they don’t then you pretty much advocate for abolishment of copyright because those are the major areas of copyright applicability at the moment. Which is a stance to have but you’d probably be better to actually say that because saying that copyright applies to some images and text but not others is a much harder position to defend.