No you wont!
It is only someone who distributes copies who can get in trouble.
If instead of that you as an individual decide to study a piece of art or fiction, and you do no distribute copies of it to anyone, this is completely legal and you don't have to pay anyone for it.
In addition to that, fair use protections apply regardless of what the creative works creator wants.
- Harper & Row, 105 S. Ct. at 2232
- Marcus, 695 F.2d 1171 at 1175
- Radji v. Khakbaz, 607 F. Supp. 1296, 1300 (D.D. C.1985)
- Roy Export Co. Establishment of Vaduz, Liechtenstein, Black, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcastinig System, Inc., 503 F. Supp. 1137 (S.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd, 672 F.2d 1095 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826, 103 S. Ct. 60, 74 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1982)
Copying and distributing someone else's work, especially without attributing the original, to make money without their permission is almost guaranteed to fall afoul of fair use.
I wasn't talking about someone creating and selling copies of someone else's work, fortunately.
So my point stands and your completely is in agreement with me that people are allowed to learn from other people's works. If someone wants to learn from someone else's work, that is completely legal no matter the licensing terms.
Instead, it is only distributing copies that is not allowed.
If I paint a painting in the style of Monet, then I would give that person attribution by stating that. Monet may have never painted my artwork, but it's still based on that person's work. If I paint anything, I can usually point to everything that inspired me to do so. AI can't do that (yet) and thus has no idea what it is doing. It is a printer that prints random parts of people's works with no attribution. And finally, it is distributing them to it's owner's customers.
I actually hope that true AI comes to fruition at some point; when that happens I would be arguing the exact opposite. We don't have that yet, so this is just literally printing variations of other people's work. Don't believe me, try running an AI without training it on other people's work!
Generative AI, however, can ONLY learn via the theft of copyrighted works. Whether this theft is covered under fair use is left to be seen.
That's not true at all. Any works in the public domain are not copyrighted, and there are things that are not copyrightable, like lists of facts and recipes.
Generative AI could be trained exclusively on such works (though obviously it would be missing a lot of context, so probably wouldn't be as desirable as something trained on everything).
First: in your opinion, which specific type of law or right is being broken or violated by generative AI? Copyright? Trademark? Can we at least agree it does not meet the definition of theft?
> which specific type of law or right is being broken or violated by generative AI?
Namely, copyright. Here's some quick points:
- Generative AI cannot exist without copyrighted works. It cannot be "taught" any other way, unlike a human.
- Any copyrighted works fed to it change its database ("weights" in technical speech).
- It then transforms these copyrighted works into new works that the "original author would have never considered without attribution" (not a legal defense)
I liken Generative AI to a mosaic of copyrighted works in which a new image is shown through the composition, as the originals can be extracted through close observation (prompting) but are otherwise indistinguishable from the whole.
Mosaics of copyrighted works are not fair use, so why would AI be any different? I'd be interested if you could point to a closer physical approximation, but I haven't found one yet.
So, if you are doing something and asserting "fair use," you are literally asking for someone to challenge you and prove it is not fair use.
Well the point is that it wouldn't go to court, as it would be completely legal.
So yes, if nobody sues you, then you are completely in the clear and aren't in trouble.
Thats what people mean by fair use. They mean that nobody is going to sue you, because the other person would lose the lawsuit, therefore your actions are safe and legal.
> you are literally asking for someone to challenge you and prove it is not fair use.
No, instead of that, the most likely circumstance is that nobody sues you, and you aren't in trouble at all, and therefore you did nothing wrong and are safe.
Theft is never legal; that's why you can be sued. "Fair use" is a legal defense in the theft of copyrighted works.
> They mean that nobody is going to sue you, because the other person would lose the lawsuit
That hasn't stopped people from suing anyone ever. If they want to sue you, they'll sue you.
> and therefore you did nothing wrong and are safe.
If you steal a pen from a store, it's still theft even if nobody catches you; or cares.
That's incorrect. You can be sued for anything. If it is theft or something else or nothing is decided by the courts.
Fortunately I am not talking about someone illegally taking property from someone else.
Instead I am talking about people taking completely legal actions that are protected by law.
> in the theft of copyrighted works
Actually, it wouldn't be theft if it was done in fair use. Instead it would be completely legal.
If nobody sues you and proves that it was illegal then you are completely safe, if you did this in fair use.
Firstly: Copyrighted work IS THE AUTHOR'S PROPERTY. They can control it however they wish via LICENSING.
Secondly: You don't have any "fair use rights" ... there is literally NO SUCH THING. "fair use" is simply a valid legal defense WHEN YOU STEAL SOMEONE'S WORK WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.
I'm jumping in the middle here, but this isn't true. They cannot control how they wish. They can only control under the limits of copyright law.
Copyright law does not extend to limiting how someone may or may not be inspired by the work. Copyright protects expression, and never ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
This isn't true though. There are lots of circumstances where someone can completely ignore the licensing and it is both completely legal, and the author isn't going to take anyone to court over it.