Comment by dragonwriter

Comment by dragonwriter 11 hours ago

> Basically, it’s an open question that courts have yet to decide.

While it hasn't either been ruled on or turned away at the Supreme Court yet, a number of federal trial courts have found training AI models from legally-acquired materials to be fair use (even while finding, in some of those and other cases, that pirating to get copies to then use in training is not and using models as a tool to produce verbatim and modified similar-medium copies of works from the training material is also not.)

I’m not aware of any US case going the other way, so, while the cases may not strictly be precedential (I think they are all trial court decisions so far), they are something of a consistent indicator.

AnthonyMouse 11 hours ago

> even while finding, in some of those and other cases, that pirating to get copies to then use in training is not

I still don't get this one. It seems like they've made a ruling with a dependency on itself without noticing.

Suppose you and some of your friends each have some books, all legally acquired. You get them together and scan them and do your training. This is the thing they're saying is fair use, right? You're getting together for the common enterprise of training this AI model on your lawfully acquired books.

Now suppose one of your friends is in Texas and you're in California, so you do it over the internet. Making a fair use copy is not piracy, right? So you're not making a "pirated copy", you're making a fair use copy.

They recognize that one being fair use has something to do with the other one being, but then ignore the symmetry. It's like they hear the words "file sharing" and refuse to allow it to be associated with something lawful.

Reply View 1 reply

tpmoney 7 hours ago

In Judge Alsup's case, it largely hinged on whether you had a right to the initial copy in the first place. If I read (and recall) his ruling correctly, the initial pirated copy (that is, downloading from a source that didn't have the right to distribute it in the first place) made all subsequent intermediary copies necessary to the training process also not fair use.
So in the case of you and your friends, it isn't the physical location that makes a difference, but whether you obtained the original copy legally, and the subsequent copies were necessary parts of the training process. This is also one of those places where we see the necessity for a legal concept of corporate "personhood". AnthonyMouseAI Inc. is the entity that needs to acquire and own the original copy in order for you and your friend to be jointly working on the process and sending copies back and forth. If your friend stops being an employee of AnthonyMouseAI Inc, they can't keep those copies and you can't send them any more.
Can you and your buddies do this without forming a legal corporation or partnership? Sure. Will that be a complicating factor if a publisher sued you? Probably.

Reply View | 0 replies