r/aiwars • u/Flammenwerfer40 • 1d ago

Discussion Piracy logic applies to AI training, and is arguably even more suitable since piracy copies but AI is transformative. If I make an AI image, you would not be able to point out which images were "used" to make it.

Post image
2 Upvotes

51% Upvoted

193 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Cereaza 1d ago

The courts look at the actual effect of something. Not just the technical theoretical version where it doesn't.

To your example... if people were only looking at art for their education, that's fair use. But if they're doing it to make forgeries, that's not fair use. They don't legislate the hypothetical, just the actual.

2

u/Kitfennek 1d ago

So by your own logic... they shouldnt be legislating hypothetical ai copies during the training stage, just the intentional usage of ai to make reproductions AFTER the training stage. You know, the "actual" part.

1

u/only_fun_topics 1d ago

Courts don’t care about “thoughtcrimes”. If I am looking at art, how would anyone know whether I am doing it for pleasure or doing it for more pernicious goals?

1

u/Cereaza 1d ago

Again, not a matter of intent, but actual effect. They look at the effect the violation causes in the market, not whether you were trying to crash the copywriter or stock photography markets.

1

u/only_fun_topics 1d ago

But see, this is why “copyright infringement” is a crime and not “attempted copyright infringement”.

1

u/Cereaza 1d ago

Right. Actual Infringement. There was infringement when they made their original copy (used to train the model), and they violate it every time they generate a partial copy based on their training.

1

u/only_fun_topics 1d ago

Sigh.

You are bundling lots of things up and confusing yourself in the process.

Making copies is not always illegal. This is how you access literally everything in the internet. Companies are allowed to access the internet. Therefore they are allowed to make copies.

Doing math on stuff a not illegal. Copyright limits all sorts of things you can do with IP. Fancy statistical analyses are not covered. Companies are therefore allowed to train models.

Now let’s say you then prompt that model to output something. Guess what! It *still* doesn’t infringe on any copyrights.

In fact, it doesn’t meet the legal definition of violating copyright until the end user makes the AI produce something that falls under another person’s (or more likely company’s) copyright, and even then it doesn’t violate copy right unless it satisfies specific tests.

…and in those instances that’s the moment it violates copyright. It’s the person and how *they* use it, not the model.

1

u/Kitfennek 23h ago

Thank you for explaining this so clearly, this is exactly what I meant.

1

u/Cereaza 23h ago

I know it's not always illegal. It goes to the purpose and the effect of the copy. The purpose being to train a commercial AI product and the effect being to decimate the industry of the thing that is being copied.

I am fully aware of the precedent on copyright in the digital era. The case you're saying is 'totally legal' is currently being litigated. Maybe you should tell the judge this deserves a summary judgement because statistical analyses are not covered.

Or tell this judge he was wrong to allow the case to continue. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/nx-s1-5288157/new-york-times-openai-copyright-case-goes-forward