>
The aggregation performed by model training is highly lossy and the model itself is a derived work at worst and is certainly fair use.Lossy or not, the training data provides value. If all the various someones had not spent time making all the stuff that ends up as training data, then the model it trains would not exist.
If you are going to use someone else's work in order to make something that you are going to profit off of, I believe that original author should be compensated. And should also be able to decide they don't want their work used in that way.
Note that I'm not talking about what existing copyright law says; I'm talking about how I believe we should be regulating this new facet of the industry.
> Making it write code that’s a clone of copyright code or making it make pictures with copy right imagery in it or making it reproduce books etc etc, then distributing the output, would be where the copyright violation occurs.
How is the end-user supposed to know this? Do we seriously believe that everyone who uses generative AI is going to run the output through some sort of process (assuming one even exists) to ensure it's not a substantial enough copy of something some copyrighted work? I certainly don't think this is going to happen.
Regardless, copyright is about distribution. If the a model trained on copyrighted material is considered a copy or derived work of the original work, then distributing that model is, in fact, copyright infringement (absent a successful fair use defense). I'm not saying that's the case, or how a court would look at it, but that's something to consider.
Lossy or not, the training data provides value. If all the various someones had not spent time making all the stuff that ends up as training data, then the model it trains would not exist.
If you are going to use someone else's work in order to make something that you are going to profit off of, I believe that original author should be compensated. And should also be able to decide they don't want their work used in that way.
Note that I'm not talking about what existing copyright law says; I'm talking about how I believe we should be regulating this new facet of the industry.
> Making it write code that’s a clone of copyright code or making it make pictures with copy right imagery in it or making it reproduce books etc etc, then distributing the output, would be where the copyright violation occurs.
How is the end-user supposed to know this? Do we seriously believe that everyone who uses generative AI is going to run the output through some sort of process (assuming one even exists) to ensure it's not a substantial enough copy of something some copyrighted work? I certainly don't think this is going to happen.
Regardless, copyright is about distribution. If the a model trained on copyrighted material is considered a copy or derived work of the original work, then distributing that model is, in fact, copyright infringement (absent a successful fair use defense). I'm not saying that's the case, or how a court would look at it, but that's something to consider.