Making available copyrighted works was enough to get a verdict.
*Copyright infringing. If it were merely being copyrighted that made distributing it bad then you wouldn'ty be able to share that Creative Commons licensed song you or someone else made, since it'd still be a "copyrighted work" due to copyright in the US being automatic upon an eligible work being put into a fixed tangible medium.
And, since AI-produced crap isn't copyrightable, no publisher wants to touch it with an eleven-foot Finn (never mind a 10' pole).
Not copyrightable if you just take what is generated, but if you modify it enough, it can absolutely IIRC - making it not useless per-se (depending on how much human touch is needed).
Why can't I get a high quality printer to make my own money?
IMO that's a hell of a false equivalence, on many levels.
"We don't consider the copying of this text to train language model fair use
I mean, that wouldn't be the boss' choice - that is decided in the courts, and whether it is a fair use or not is still up in the air. (This would also age like milk if it was ruled to be a fair use).
Are your children building a business model based on the work of others?
In the simplest sense, isn't that what everyone does in some way or form?
they come in waves to make it harder to know if a new hack was detectable or not.
Perhaps this is a really stupid question, but would those who are working on cheats be able to determine that anyways? It seems like something that could be deduced rather easily.
The AI dataset includes the original art.
The training set, or data set used to make images? (since both are sets that exist, but are different sets for different purposes. The latter
What's special about open source models?
What I mean is, unlike closed source models, I am struggling to see how you'd enforce such things on them.
Kind of like using your cellphone as a webcam. Almost nobody cares.
Got a source for that?
The people who abuse Plex to profit from it are ruining things for the majority of people
As with a lot of "X ruins Y for Z" claims, IMO it relies on the assumption there is only one variable involved or one aim of blame, faultily.
I mean, if something happens, and a party overcorrects afecting people (when it is arguably avoidable), in general I mean, shouldn't the overcorrecting party hold part of the blame?
Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.