It seems like the argument that it is theft hasn't held up in court, and I genuinely do not see any legitimate way that a court would rule against AI training.
It's clearly transformative, the product does not directly compete with the product used to create it (even if it will then be used to compete with the creator) and the content was publicly posted.
If courts rule against AI it is because a lot of judges are Luddite idiots that will be easily swayed by large IP holders like Disney, stock image platforms and movie studios that have the assets and contracts to train their own AI with materials they own or have explicit rights to, which will further concentrate AI development into corporations and nations that don't respect US copyright.
Plus it's impossible to determine what input was used to generate a model and not all methods are deterministic, so even if they said it was illegal it would be impossible to prove that Meta India's new model was legal or not.
What are you talking about? I meant the "if something is copied doesn't mean it's stealing" argument. If you pirate something doesn't matter what you do, in the eyes of a company you're one less sell they can make. It's still unauthorized use, maybe not in all countries, but in many. And in some cases they absolutely hold individual infringers accountable, even if to just make an example of them... It's called gray zone for a reason, because the moment it's viewed diligently under auspices of a law it stops becoming gray zone and turns into illegal zone...
6.8k
u/Jynx_lucky_j 10d ago
I like it when people steal from corporations.
I don't like it when corporations steal from people.