zlacker

Pretty sure that’s already decided. Publicly played movies and music are not available to be used. Why would the same not apply to posted images?

>>cudgy+(OP)
What court case set the president that you can’t train a neural network on publicly posted movies and audio?

>>cudgy+(OP)
If you post a song on your website and I listen to it am I violating your copyright?

If my parrot recites your song after hearing my alleged infringement, I record its performance and post it on YouTube is that infringement?

Last one, if I use the song from your website to train an song recognition AI is that infringement?

>>dymk+nq
I'd assume the precedent would be about sharing encoder data, which would be covered in bittorrent cases.

"Training a neural network" is an implementation detail. These companies accessed millions of copyrighted works, encoded them such that the copyright was unenforcable, then sell the output of that transformation.

>>UncleE+sx
If I host a song I don't have license to on my website I'm violating copyright by distributing it to you when you listen on my site.

If my parrot recites your song after hearing it and I record that and upload to YouTube. I've violated your copyright.

If a big company does the same(runs the song through a non-human process, then sells the output) I believe they're blatantly infringing copyright.

>>Xelyne+bC
Not being able to reproduce the inputs (each image is contributing single bytes to the neural network) is relevant. Torrent files are a means to exactly reproduce their inputs. Diffusion models are trained to not reproduce their inputs, nor do they have the means to.

>>Xelyne+uC
Big Company is not distributing the input images by distributing the neural network. There is no way to extract even a single input image out of a diffusion model.

>>Xelyne+uC
I should have specified the OP has legal rights to the song and the end user listening was under the same granted/implied license as a program doing the web harvesting, my bad.