This is the fundamental problem with where the AI race is heading, IMHO. Broadly, there are two possible legal interpretations (to my layman's mind):
* A model is derived work of its training data. This seems sane to me. Open, but copyrighted, works (like FOSS) remain protected from abuse. There's some legal moat around AI models. But on the other hand it seems unlikely that there's enough liberally licensed (or public domain) training data to go around. The little guy's status quo remains, the frontier labs' work slows down massively.
* A model is not derived work of its training data. This seems to me insane, but a lot of the world seems to hold this view (including the frontier labs). Stuff like FOSS or indie art is under huge threat of copyrightwashing. But on the other hand, there's also zero legal moat around the models. The little guy is eviscerated, but so are the frontier labs.
Neither interpretation seems, to me, to be capable of sustaining the last couple of years' developments. But what do I know.
* A model is derived work of its training data. This seems sane to me. Open, but copyrighted, works (like FOSS) remain protected from abuse. There's some legal moat around AI models. But on the other hand it seems unlikely that there's enough liberally licensed (or public domain) training data to go around. The little guy's status quo remains, the frontier labs' work slows down massively.
* A model is not derived work of its training data. This seems to me insane, but a lot of the world seems to hold this view (including the frontier labs). Stuff like FOSS or indie art is under huge threat of copyrightwashing. But on the other hand, there's also zero legal moat around the models. The little guy is eviscerated, but so are the frontier labs.
Neither interpretation seems, to me, to be capable of sustaining the last couple of years' developments. But what do I know.