> What's the model supposed to do? It's just doing what many human artists would do, if they're not explicitly being paid to create new IP.

Not really? Why would a human artist create a faithful reproduction of Indiana Jones when asked to paint an archeologist? And besides, if they did, it would be considered clear IP infringement if the result were used commercially.

> If infringement is happening, it arguably doesn't happen when an infringing work product is generated (or regurgitated, or whatever you want to call it.) Much less when the model is trained. It's when the output is used commercially -- by a human -- that the liability should rightfully attach.

I agree. Release groups, torrent sites and seedbox operators should not be wrongly accused of pirating movies. Piracy only occurs in the act of actually watching a movie without paying, and should not be prosecuted without definitive proof of such (¬‿¬)

> if they did, it would be considered clear IP infringement if the result were used commercially.

Isn’t that exactly what OP is saying?

Torrent sites deliver the movie in its original form. AI models maintain abstract descriptions of the content as individually-unrecognizable high-dimensional representations in latent space.

Over the years we've spent a lot of time on this and similar sites questioning the sanity of a legal system that makes math illegal, and, well, that's all this is. Math.

To the extent the model reproduces images from Indiana Jones and the others, it is because these multibillion-dollar franchises are omnipresent cultural icons. The copyright holder has worked very hard to make that happen, and they have been more than adequately repaid for their contribution to our shared culture. It's insane to go after an AI model for simply being as aware of that imagery and as capable of reproducing it as a human artist would be.

If the model gives you infringing material as a prompt response, it's your responsibility not to use that material commercially, just as if you had tasked a human artist with the same vague requirement and received a plagiarized work product in return.