I reject the analogy to Street View, due to the fact that a sign in a window isn’t Street View’s primary use, it’s an accident (plus the store owner is responsi

I reject the analogy to Street View, due to the fact that a sign in a window isn’t Street View’s primary use, it’s an accident (plus the store owner is responsible for ensuring permitted use of publicly visible signs and is culpable for copyright violations, and that photography of anything in public view is permitted by law - see the famous “photographer’s rights”), whereas with AI, statistically reproducing the training examples is the primary intent of it’s design. Reproducing derivative remix works is its function and nature through and through. Whether the output is actually recognizable as one of the individual inputs is a different question from whether the output is a derivative work. > Just because something sounds like a derivative work doesn’t mean it will infringe copyright or fail the fair use tests That’s true! Remixes where the source comes from multiple songs have a history of escaping copyright claims more often than derivative works of a single song. But that doesn’t change the fact that using copyrighted data without permission and without Fair Use exemption to train AI is currently illegal. And it doesn’t change the fact that when AI reproduces substantial portions of any given work, regardless of what the probability was, it is illegal. Claims that the probability of it are “exceedingly small” don’t stand up to the (now many!) actual cases filed in court demonstrating AI reproducing copyrighted works, and not because the chances were small, but because it simply breaks the law.