zlacker

>>I don't think people are debating fair use for education and research. It's the obvious corporate and for profit use

Sounds like you are, because in copyright law there is not carve out for only non-profit education / research. Research and Education can be both profit and non-profit, copyright law does not distinguish between the 2, but it sounds like you claim is research can only ever be non-profit but given the entire computing sector in large part owes itself to commercial research (i.e Bell Labs) I find that a bit odd

>>phpist+(OP)
Doesn't fair use make a distinction in the use though? Fair use in terms of commentary on something for instance is not the same as a company presenting marketing images, for example, as theirs in the selling of a product. If someone has legally protected their artwork, you can't just apply a photoshop layer to it and claim it is yours as fair use though, right? The issue seems to become almost more about provenance.

>>beezle+sd
>If someone has legally protected their artwork, you can't just apply a photoshop layer to it and claim it is yours as fair use though, right?

That depends on what the layer was, and there is current cases heading to supreme court that have something similar to that so we may see

however commentary is just one type of fair use and would not be a factor here, nor is anyone claiming the AI is reselling the original work. The claim is that copyright law prevents unauthorized use of a work in the training of AI, AI training could (and likely would) be treated as research, and the result of the research is a derivative work wholly separate from the original and created under fair use