Transformation.

Taking something someone else made and showing it as-is, bypassing their own restrictions: No no.

Taking something someone else made, modify it or use parts of it in some bigger thing or completely change it: Fine, if you have money and/or run a company

▲

bluefirebrand 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So in theory if you took twitter content and then transformed it so it "summarizes" all tweets with an AI rather than posting the exact text, would that be allowed?

Because that's stupid. These laws are stupid.

▲

brainwad 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's exactly the way UK courts are heading, see Getty vs Stability AI. The court ruled that there's no infringment because the model doesn't store exact copies, just derived weights, and therefore when it generates new images those aren't copies of protected works.

▲

bluefirebrand 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That's stupid, these courts are stupid

It should have nothing to do with storing copies it should have to do with what the models can produce. And it's clear they can produce copyrighted works, they've just been tuned so they don't.

That shouldn't satisfy anyone.

	▲	immibis2 26 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> they can produce copyrighted works, they've just been tuned so they don't. In other words... they can't. The court is not stupid, and will consider this fact.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

dismalaf 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The point is that you can't steal someone else's content 1:1. But you can use it for a different use (say, display the tweet in an article, then comment on it).