Midjourney, the ones being sued currently, are clearly the ones who should pay, and you're a shitty person for even making this argument.

The problem (as I see it) is that either you think people deserve help or you think people don't deserve help. If you think human beings have some kind of intrinsic value, then you may conclude that they deserve help when they have problems. Now if you expect charities to provide that help, you are basically saying "Good luck getting the help you need because you're going to need it." You basically have to hope that some charity exists with the resources to help you, that the charity is interested in your specific problem, and that you are lucky enough to get the help before other people who need the same help exhaust the resources of the charity. In theory there could be weird cases where charities are so "blessed" that they can help everyone, but in practice I've never heard of such a case.

Me? I think people do have intrinsic value and that there are lots of things that shouldn't happen to them. Easy example: Children shouldn't starve to death. But I think it should be the job of the government to address such problems for EVERYONE. Okay, it's nice if a charity can help prevent a few deaths from starvation, but it's really the job of the government to prevent all deaths from starvation. (And of course the details get messy, whereas a charity can just ignore the details 'out of its scope'.)

The only problem with all that is for it to work we would need to get rid of all our tribal tendencies and have a single government for the whole world. But then the rich that got rich by taking advantage of our tribal natures wouldn't like that and would do everything in their power to stop it. Leading to the shithole that is the world as we know it.