This approach is misguided, as are most applications of copyright to AI. Copyright violations are a form of stealing, like conversion or misappropriation, wher

This approach is misguided, as are most applications of copyright to AI. Copyright violations are a form of stealing, like conversion or misappropriation, where limited rights granted are later expanded. The "substantial similarity" test is just a way courts have evolved to see if there was copying, and if it was important -- in the context of human beings. But because it doesn't really matter if people make personal copies, and because you have to quote something to criticize it, and because some art is like other art -- because that level of stealing is normal -- copyright built a bunch of exceptions. But imho there is no doubt that though a book grants the right to read for the sake of enjoyment, the right to process the text for recall or replication by automated means is not included in any sale of any copy -- regardless of whether one can trigger output that meets a substantial-similarity test. "All Rights Reserved" I understand case law and statutes state nothing like this, and that prior law does more to obscure than clarify the issue. But that's the take from first principles.