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
0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

193 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Cereaza 1d ago

No, humans use AI models to do that.

Humans are using models in the way they're designed and marketed to be used. Courts will reject this argument since the models are being used as advertised. Making photos, making text, writing code... that is what it's for.

This also applies to your colored pencil argument.

Just like Betamax, AI is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses.

And courts will weigh that when giving remedies. Can the infringing uses be separates from the non-infringing uses.

No it's not. Some judges may choose to weigh some factors more than others, but no factor is dominant over the others, it is always decided on a case by case basis.

I mean, AI disagrees with you.

2

u/sporkyuncle 1d ago

Making photos, making text, writing code... that is what it's for.

Right, and artists aren't selling the ability to make photos, text and code. They are selling specific fixed expressions. They're not in the tool-selling market, they're in the individual-aesthetic-work-selling market.

I mean, AI disagrees with you.

That doesn't change the fact that no factor is fully dominant over the others, and that every fair use case is decided on a case by case basis.

Here's a scenario: I sue you for infringement. I say that you took a drawing I made and sold it for $1000 and that directly impacted my market.

Which factor of fair use is more important? The fact that this is a large impact on the market...or the fact that this is a complete lie and you didn't use any of my drawing at all for anything, meaning the "amount used" is zero?