• @kromem
    link
    11 year ago

    That’s not what I think, that’s what the law says.

    No, it doesn’t. The scenario outlined squarely falls under fair use, particularly because of the non-distribution combined with research/education use. Fair use is not infringement.

    Good luck with that.

    We’ll see.

    Depends. If the imitative AI imitates its source material too closely, that could absolutely be laid out as a distribution of copyrighted material.

    I mean, if we’re talking about hypothetical models that only produce infringing material, you might be right.

    But if we’re talking about current models that have no ability to reproduce the entire training set and only limited edge case reproducibility of training images with extensive prompt effort, I stand by being surprised (and that your tar metaphor is a poor and misleading one).

    If we’re going with poor metaphors, I could offer up the alternative of saying that distributing or offering a cloud based Photoshop isn’t infringement even though it can be used to reproduce copyrighted material. And much like diffusion based models and unlike a tarball, Photoshop requires creative input and effort from a user in order to produce infringing material.