zlacker

>>moose4+(OP)
Broadly summarizing.

This is OK and fair use: Training LLMs on copyrighted work, since it's transformative.

This is not OK and not fair use: pirating data, or creating a big repository of pirated data that isn't necessarily for AI training.

Overall seems like a pretty reasonable ruling?

>>3PS+V1
Definitely seems reasonable to say "you can train on this data but you have to have a legal copy"

Personally I like to frame most AI problems by substituting a human (or humans) for the AI. Works pretty well most of the time.

In this case if you hired a bunch of artists/writers that somehow had never seen a Disney movie and to train them to make crappy Disney clones you made them watch all the movies it certainly would be legal to do so but only if they had legit copies in the training room. Pirating the movies would be illegal.

Though the downside is it does create a training moat. If you want to create the super-brain AI that's conversant on the corpus of copyrighted human literature you're going to need a training library worth millions

>>ticula+J7
That's a part of the issue. I'm not sure if this has happened in visual arts, but there is in fact precedent against trying to hire a sound a like over the one you want to sound like. You can't be in talks with Scarlet Johannsen, reject her, and then hire a sound a like and say "talk like Scarlet". It's pretty clear at that point what you want but you didn't want to pay talent for it.

I see elements of that here. Buying copyrighted works not to be exposed and be inspired, nor to utilize the aithor's talents, but to fuel a commercialization of sound-a-likes.

>>johnny+a9
> You can't be in talks with Scarlet Johannsen, reject her, and then hire a sound a like and say "talk like Scarlet"

Keep in mind, the Authors in the lawsuit are not claiming the _output_ is copyright infringement so Alsup isn't deciding that.