Either they believe that training should respect copyright (in which case they could not do what they do) or they believe that training is fair use (in which case they cannot possibly object to Google doing the same as them).
Either they believe that training should respect copyright (in which case they could not do what they do) or they believe that training is fair use (in which case they cannot possibly object to Google doing the same as them).
Services are subject to terms of service. (If content is received through a service, the terms of service may govern use of it, but that’s not a feature of the content, but the acquisition route.)
The only claim being made against Google here is that they used ChatGPT content. I can't find any sources claiming that Google made use of an OpenAI service. So the distinction is correct, but doesn't seem particularly valuable in this context -- using data from ShareGPT is not a TOS violation.
> that’s not a feature of the content, but the acquisition route.
It's neither. It's a feature of contract law.