In my opinion the New York Times has no moral claim about taking other people's work. Their business to take other people's suffering, and use that to write s

In my opinion the New York Times has no moral claim about taking other people's work. Their business to take other people's suffering, and use that to write stories to sell views (and newspapers). An egregious example is Kim Phuc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc They featured a naked, burned girl on the front page of the New York Times to sell copies. I am not aware of any compensation the New York Times offered her. Her permission was never asked. That picture has defined how the public has viewed her for the rest of her life. They would argue that doing this is in furtherance of public goods such as people knowing what is going on and they could not realistically seek permission from every person much less compensate every person featured in a news photo or story. I think that may be a valid argument. But doesn't AI also have the potential to benefit society. Isn't using news articles as input for AI making AI better and more useful to society. If the news can use people's images and suffering to benefit society (while making money), why can't their news stories be used to train AI to benefit even more people with knowledge?