GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

  • nymwit@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

    from your second link. I don’t often see this brought up in discussions. The problem of models trained on copyrighted info is definitely different than what you do with that model/output from it. If you’re making money from infringing, the fair use arguments are historically less successful. I have less of an issue with the general training of a model vs. commercial infringing use.

    • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re responsible for infringing works, whether you used Photoshop, copy & paste, or a generative model.

      • nymwit@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t disagree with that statement. I’m having trouble seeing how that fits with what I said, though. Can you elaborate?

        • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t really, I was just kind of restating what you quoted. Since no one factor of fair use is more important than the others, and it is possible to have a fair use defense even if you do not meet all the criteria of fair use, do you have data to back up your claims about moneymaking infringement?