Whether covered under fair use or not, the laws around copyright today did not anticipate this use case. Congress should pass laws that clarify how data is and isn’t allowed to be used in training AI models, how creators should or shouldn’t be compensated, etc - rather than speculating whether this usage technically does or doesn’t comply with the law as-is.
I think what really sizzles me is that some of these same companies helped develop such strict enhancements to copyright to begin with in the realm of software. So I'm not falling for the crocodile tears when they get caught in the very snare they used to litigate thousands of other companies for and bully potentially millions more with just because now it's more profitable to tear it down. Made your bed...
And yes, regardless of results I agree there should be new laws made. But we know Congress in the US this year has been a roller coaster, to put it lightly. And I don't even think this is top 5 of what congress needed to codify into law properly. So all the short term work will be the judicial branch interpreting what few laws we do have.
> I think what really sizzles me is that some of these same companies helped develop such strict enhancements to copyright to begin with in the realm of software.
Create a private right of action. If creator A can show that AI trainer B used their works (e.g. like how we've seen Getty watermarks show up in AI generated pics), then they can sue for $X dollars.
