Creating competition doesn’t count as harm—it has to be direct substitution for the work in question. That’s a pretty high bar.
Also there are things like stable diffusion which arguably aren’t commercial (the code and model are free), which further undercuts the commercial purpose angle.
I’m not saying any of this is dispositive—that’s the nature of balancing tests. I think this is going to be a tough row to hoe though, and certainly not a slam dunk to say that copyright should prevent ML training on publicly available data.
Let’s say an artist draws images in a very unique style. Afterwards, a lot of Dalle 2 images get created in the same style. That would make the style less unique and less valuable.
It’s plausible financial harm in a way that doesn’t exist in the case on which the Supreme Court ruled.
I don’t believe it’s a slam dunk either. I do believe there’s room for the Supreme Court to decide either way. The fact that it’s not a slam dunk either way suggests that spending money on making a stronger legal argument is valuable.
Creating competition doesn’t count as harm—it has to be direct substitution for the work in question. That’s a pretty high bar.
Also there are things like stable diffusion which arguably aren’t commercial (the code and model are free), which further undercuts the commercial purpose angle.
I’m not saying any of this is dispositive—that’s the nature of balancing tests. I think this is going to be a tough row to hoe though, and certainly not a slam dunk to say that copyright should prevent ML training on publicly available data.
(Still not a lawyer, still not legal advice!)
Let’s say an artist draws images in a very unique style. Afterwards, a lot of Dalle 2 images get created in the same style. That would make the style less unique and less valuable.
It’s plausible financial harm in a way that doesn’t exist in the case on which the Supreme Court ruled.
I don’t believe it’s a slam dunk either. I do believe there’s room for the Supreme Court to decide either way. The fact that it’s not a slam dunk either way suggests that spending money on making a stronger legal argument is valuable.
You can’t copyright a style.