To my understanding, if the material is publicly available or obtained legally (i.e., not pirated), then training a model with it falls under fair use.

Once training is established as fair use, it doesn't really matter if the license is MIT, GPL, or a proprietary one.

▲

blibble 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

fair use only applies in the united states (and Poland, and a very limited set of others)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#/media/File:Fair_use_...

and it is certainly not part of the Berne Convention

in almost every country in the world even timeshifting using your VCR and ripping your own CDs is copyright infringement

▲

RobotToaster 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Most commonwealth countries have fair dealing, which is similar although slightly different https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

	▲	blibble 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		importantly "fair dealing" has no concept of "transformation" (which is the linch-pin of the sloppers)

▲

jcelerier 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

France and most of europe has fair use (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copie_priv%C3%A9e) but also has a mandatory tax on every sold medium that can do storage to recover the "lost fees" due to fair use

▲

mongol 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> To my understanding, if the material is publicly available or obtained legally (i.e., not pirated), then training a model with it falls under fair use.

Is this legally settled?

	▲	1gn15 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. There have been multiple court cases affirming fair use.

▲

graemep 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That is just the sort of point I am trying to make. That is a copyright law issue, not a contractual one. If the GPL is a contract then you are in breach of contract regardless of fair use or equivalents.