zlacker

> Any argument about this is trying to redefine copyright as the right to extract the semantic or cultural value of a document. In reality the definition is already clear - no copying of a document by any means for any purpose without explicit permission.

I've studied copyright for over 20 years as an amateur, and I used to very much think this way.

And then I started reading court decisions about copyright, and suddenly it became extremely clear that it's a very nuanced discussion about whether or not the document can be copied without explicit permission. There are tons of cases where it's perfectly permissible, even if the copyright holder demands that you request permission.

I've covered this in other posts on Hacker News, but it is still my belief that we will ultimately find AI training to be fair use because it does not materially impact the market for the original work. Perhaps someone could bring a case that makes the case that it does, but courts have yet to see a claim that asserts this in a convincing way based on my reading of the cases over the past couple of years.

>>rpdill+(OP)
I assume the emphasis there is on training, whereas it's totally possible to infringe by running the model in certain ways later.

>>Terr_+NM
Agreed! My take is that usages still can infringe if the output produced would otherwise infringe. I would take the fact that you use AI as the particular tool to accomplish the infringement as incidental.