> That succeeds on a different part of the four-factor test, the degree to which it competes with / affects the market for the original It satisfied multiple p

> That succeeds on a different part of the four-factor test, the degree to which it competes with / affects the market for the original It satisfied multiple parts of the four-factor test. It was found satisfy the first factor due to being "highly transformative", the second factor was considered not dispositive is isolation and favoring Google when combined with its transformative purpose, and it satisfied the third factor as the usage was "necessary to achieve that purpose" - with the court making the distinction between what was copied (lots) and what is revealed to the public (limited snippets). As you had all factors as "maximally against" fair use, do you believe that AI is significantly less transformative than Google Books? I'd say even in cases where the output is the same format as the content it was trained on, like Google Translate, it's still generally highly transformative. > the degree to which it competes with Specifically, to be pedantic, it's the effect of the use/copying of the original copyrighted work.