4 ms·
Even if your belief that only the person *providing* the content is liable, do you honestly think a single person found all the content, downloaded it, directly
by lsaferite 1y ago
Even if your belief that only the person *providing* the content is liable, do you honestly think a single person found all the content, downloaded it, directly trained the model themselves, and then deleted the content? If at any step the content was given or shared to anyone else for any reason, have they not converted into a provider themselves?
- Lerc 1y agoThat in itself is a complicated issue, but I would suspect that this does not count as copyright infringement. The entity in possession of the data does not change, the copies and manipulation are performed by employees but at no time do they own what they are manipulating. If it were true that this constitutes a transfer of possession, then the targets for the lawsuit should be the individual employees, and I don't think anyone wants that.
- lsaferite 1y agoI would counter that they were operating under the direction of the corporation and, as such, the corporation should be liable. But, I'm not a lawyer. My overall point is just that a corporation willfully violating copyright should be treated wholly differently than an individual. I still think that, regardless of any copyright violation by the corporation in acquiring the content, that training with the data doesn't (or shouldn't) somehow taint the resulting model.
- Lerc 1y ago>I still think that, regardless of any copyright violation by the corporation in acquiring the content, that training with the data doesn't (or shouldn't) somehow taint the resulting model. Yes. Building the data set, acquiring the data set, training the model, using the model, and using the output of a model are all separate actions, it is not necessarily the case that any legal standing in one act transfers down the chain. It's certainly not going to be resolved by a single case.