>IP laws can stay the same, but they should have purchased a license to use my art before including it in their training data.

But including your art in the training data is fair use (or otherwise exempt) by most standards, as no reproduction occurs. You are advocating for a change to IP law to make it more restrictive.

▲

JoshTriplett an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> But including your art in the training data is fair use

The four factors of fair use in the US:

> the purpose and character of your use

Commercial, for-profit. Not scholarship, not research, not commentary, not parody, etc.

> the nature of the copyrighted work

Absolutely everything. Artistic, creative, not purely factual.

> the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

All of it, from everyone.

> the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Directly competing with those whose data was copied.

▲

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

Fair use by most standards? Which standards are those? I don't think a standard about training an AI on billions of images exists.

	▲	oreally 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		By the same 'transformative' standards that allow satire, reaction and commentary videos to exist. And those take 100% from the source and add context, whereas good generated AI images that aren't wholesale copying take like less than 10% from the original source. In addition, the idea that you need to pay rent on your observation of someone else's work is absurd. No one pays Newton's descendants for making lifts or hosting bungee jump sport activities.

▲

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

No precedent has been set when it comes to training and fair use

▲

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

Which case decided that?

▲

bluefirebrand 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> But including your art in the training data is fair use

It shouldn't be!