> How can you even think it's ok for OpenAI to use work that was not done for them without paying some kind of license? At the risk of answering a rhetorical q

> How can you even think it's ok for OpenAI to use work that was not done for them without paying some kind of license? At the risk of answering a rhetorical question: because copyright covers four rights: copying, distribution, creation of derivative works, and public performance, and LLM training doesn't fit cleanly into any of these, which is why many think copying-for-the-purpose-of-training might be fair use (courts have yet to rule here). I think the most sane outcome would be to find that: - Training is fair use - Direct, automated output of AI models cannot be copyrighted (I think this has already been ruled on[0] in the US). - Use of an genAI to create works that would otherwise be considered a "derivative work" under copyright law can still be challenged under copyright. The end result here would be that AI can continue to be a useful tool, but artists still have legal teeth to come after folks using the tool to create infringing works. Of course, determining whether a work is similar enough to be considered infringing remains a horribly difficult challenge, but that's nothing new[1], and will continue to hinge on how courts assess the four factors that govern fair use[2]. [0]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receiv... [1]: https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176881182/supreme-court-sides-against-andy-warhol-foundation-in-copyright-infringement-cas https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176881182/supreme-court-side... [2]: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/