zlacker

>>rntn+(OP)
Copyright holders make all kinds of arguments for why they should be get money for incidental exposure to their work. This is all about greed and jealousy. If someone uses AI to make infringing content, existing laws already cover that. The fact that an ML model could be used to generate infringing content, and has exposure to or "knowledge" of some copyrighted material is immaterial. People just see someone else making money and want to try and get a piece of it.

>>andy99+gf
All I see is AI companies poorly justifying their grift that they know they don't want to pay for the content that they are commercializing without permission and pull the fair use excuses.

It is no wonder why OpenAI had to pay Shutterstock for training on their data and Getty suing Stability AI for training on their watermarked images and using it commercially without permission and actors / actresses filing lawsuits against commercial voice cloners which costs them close to nothing, as those companies either take down the cloned voice offering or shutdown.

These weak arguments from these AI folks sound like excuses justifying a newly found grift.

>>rvz+rh
You likely benefit from machine learning applications constantly without realizing. The spam filters for your email, the scanning for defects of the products you use and the rails they were delivered on, when you enter a search query or translate a page into English, weather modelling to give you accurate predictions and early warnings, etc.

To avoid IP law causing more damage than it already has with evergreening of medical patents, I think it strictly has to be the generation of substantially similar media that counts as infringement, as the comment you're replying to suggests - not just "this tumor detector was pretrained on a large number of web images before task-specific fine-tuning, so it's illegal because they didn't pay Getty beforehand" if training were to be infringement.