4 ms·

> it's not illegal to use data to train a model That's not at all settled law. AI companies are hoping to use the fair use exception to protect their businesse

> it's not illegal to use data to train a model That's not at all settled law. AI companies are hoping to use the fair use exception to protect their businesses, but it looks like it will soon be clarified the other way. Wired summed it up: "Congress Wants Tech Companies to Pay Up for AI Training Data" https://www.wired.com/story/congress-senate-tech-companies-pay-ai-training-data/#intcid=_wired-right-rail_7c5d364a-988f-4fa9-9717-ddbe9df8d8b5_popular4-1-reranked-by-vidi_fallback_cral-top2-2 https://www.wired.com/story/congress-senate-tech-companies-p... And Ars wrote "Media orgs want AI firms to license content for training, and Congress is sympathetic." https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/01/at-senate-ai-hearing-news-executives-fight-against-fair-use-claims-for-ai-training-data/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/01/at-se... "[Senator] Hawley expressed concerns that if the tech companies' expansive interpretation of fair use prevails, it would be like "the mouse that ate the elephant"—an exception that would make copyright law toothless."

Workaccount2 3y ago
Again, fair use concerns the production of copyrighted works, it has nothing to do with the training. If this was the case, every person who could draw a batman symbol from memory would be in violation of copyright. "Using copyrighted works for monetary gain" refers to using art itself as the product. Knowing what Apple's logo is and making a logo in that style is not a violation of copyright. However using Apple's logo (or something strikingly close) is a violation. The reason this is muddied is because legally artists don't really have a leg to stand on for "my art cannot be trained on by a computer" whereas they do have strong legal precedent (and actual laws) for "my art cannot be reproduced by a computer".
- leereeves 3y ago
  > fair use concerns the production of copyrighted works, it has nothing to do with the training Training is the "production" of a derivative work (a model) based on the training data. AI companies claim that this is covered by fair use, but this is simply a claim that has not yet been tested in court. And even if courts rule in favor of the AI companies, it sounds likely (based on what I've read) that Congress will soon rewrite the law to support the artists' position.
summerlight 3y ago
Currently, neither party has a strong legal ground yet and may require another landmark case to fully settle it down.
- leereeves 3y ago
  If Congress doesn't get there first.
  - summerlight 3y ago
    Even if the Congress made a law, that can be effectively delayed by injunctions until the Supreme court made the ultimate decision. And I'm pretty sure big techs will challenge with an army of lawyers.

Workaccount2 3y ago

Again, fair use concerns the production of copyrighted works, it has nothing to do with the training. If this was the case, every person who could draw a batman symbol from memory would be in violation of copyright. "Using copyrighted works for monetary gain" refers to using art itself as the product. Knowing what Apple's logo is and making a logo in that style is not a violation of copyright. However using Apple's logo (or something strikingly close) is a violation. The reason this is muddied is because legally artists don't really have a leg to stand on for "my art cannot be trained on by a computer" whereas they do have strong legal precedent (and actual laws) for "my art cannot be reproduced by a computer".

leereeves 3y ago
> fair use concerns the production of copyrighted works, it has nothing to do with the training Training is the "production" of a derivative work (a model) based on the training data. AI companies claim that this is covered by fair use, but this is simply a claim that has not yet been tested in court. And even if courts rule in favor of the AI companies, it sounds likely (based on what I've read) that Congress will soon rewrite the law to support the artists' position.

summerlight 3y ago

Currently, neither party has a strong legal ground yet and may require another landmark case to fully settle it down.

leereeves 3y ago
If Congress doesn't get there first.
- summerlight 3y ago
  Even if the Congress made a law, that can be effectively delayed by injunctions until the Supreme court made the ultimate decision. And I'm pretty sure big techs will challenge with an army of lawyers.