AI companies have all kinds of arguments against paying for copyrighted content

>>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
Lets try this:

I'd like you do give away 100% of your salary, ok?

Are you greedy if you say no?

>>exabri+gg
If you use a snippet from Stack Overflow that came from a book, is the original publisher entitled to some of your salary?

>>bdcrav+bh
This is what Silicon Valley doesn't understand: The concept of Consent.

If someone posts something to StackOverflow, they're intending to help both the original person and anyone that comes along later with the same question with their coding problem, and that's the extent of it.

An artist making a painting or song has not consented to training algorithms on their copyrighted work. In fact, neither has the StackOverflow person.

Boggles my mind this concept is so absent from the minds of SV folk.

>>exabri+Kh
> This is what Silicon Valley doesn't understand: The concept of Consent.

This is what you don't understand: the concept of fair use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

If the courts hold this type of thing to be fair use (which I'm about 90% sure they will), "consent" won't enter into it. At all.

>>Turing+Cm
There is nothing "fair use" around this: [0] or this [1] which both cases are done without permission and are commercial uses.

[1] https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/scarlett-johansson-leg...

>>rvz+bt
Your first reference is an opinion of the lawyers for a concerned party, i.e., meaningless. Lawyers make nonsensical claims all the time. It's one of the things they get paid for.

The situation described in your second reference is already unlawful, regardless of how the image was produced. You're not allowed to make commercial use of images of Scarlett Johansson even if you scratch them on a cave wall with a broken deer antler.

zlacker