zlacker

> That a service incorporating the authors' works exists is not at issue.

It's not an issue because it's not currently illegal because nobody could have foreseen this years ago.

But it is profiting off of the unpaid work of millions. And there's very little chance of change because it's so hard to pass new protection laws when you're not Disney.

>>xdenni+(OP)
Marx wrote The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living. and that would be true if one were obligated to pay the full freight of one's antecedents. The more positive truth is that the brains of the living reach new heights from that Alp and build ever new heights for those who come afterwards.

>>xdenni+(OP)
Let's not expand copyright law.

>>xdenni+(OP)
It's not an issue because it's not what this case was about, as the linked document explicitly states. The Authors did not contest the legality of the model's outputs, only the inputs used in training.

>>TeMPOr+gb
Correct, the New York Times and Disney are suing for the output side. I am going to hazard a guess that you won't be able to circumvent copyright and trademark just because you are using AI. Where that line is has yet to be determined though.

>>megama+Hf
Right, but where that line will be drawn will have major impact on the near-term future of those models. If the user is liable for distributing infringing output that came from AI, that's not a problem for the field (and IMHO a reasonable approach) - but if they succeed in making the model vendors liable for the possibility of users generating infringing output, it'll shake things up pretty seriously.