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, at least in the US and some other jurisdictions.

If the training is established as fair use, the underlying license doesn't really matter. The term you added would likely be void or deemed unenforceable if someone ever brought it to a court.

▲

rileymat2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It depends on the license terms, if you have a license that allowed you to get it legally where you agreed to those terms it would not be legal for that purpose.

But this is all grey area… https://www.authorsalliance.org/2023/02/23/fair-use-week-202...

▲

justin_murray 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is at least murky, since a lot of pirated material is “publicly available”. Certainly some has ended up in the training data.

▲

michaelmrose 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It isn't? You have to break the law to get it. It's publicly available like your TV is if I were to break into your house and avoid getting shot.

	▲	basilgohar 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That isn't even remotely a sensible analogy. Equating copyright violation with stealing physical property is an extremely failed metaphor.
	▲	MangoToupe 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe you have some legalistic point that escapes comprehension, but I certainly consider my house to be much private and the internet public.

▲

colechristensen 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I wouldn't say this is settled law, but it looks like this is one of the likely outcomes. It might not be possible to write a license to prevent training.