3 ms·
No such licensing concept could work. The AI companies' argument is that what they're doing counts as fair use, so they don't need to abide by any license. If t
by josephcsible 2y ago
No such licensing concept could work. The AI companies' argument is that what they're doing counts as fair use, so they don't need to abide by any license. If that argument is true, then such a thing wouldn't do anything, and if it's false, then such a thing is unnecessary, because they're already violating even the most lax licenses (e.g., MIT) by failing to provide the required attribution.
- muzani 2y agoCan't one just literally say that AI is not allowed? It's not fair use when you're going directly against the license.
- josephcsible 2y ago> It's not fair use when you're going directly against the license. Isn't the whole point of fair use that it's stuff you can do even if the copyright holder isn't okay with it?
- tjr 2y agohttps://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ Fair use can be a bit ambiguous, but I think there are definitely grounds to claim that what the AI companies are doing is not fair use. I imagine it will have to be tried in court for anyone to say for certain. (And I imagine whatever court ruling happens would be contested. We may actually need multiple court rulings...)