Embed Notice

Only the workers' movement can fight automation. Copyright law was made for capitalists and not for workers. Artists have to understand that, first and foremost, they are workers like the rest of human beings who need to work in order to survive. They don't live on a heavenly altar, above worldly concerns.

"The launch of ChatGPT and other deep learning quickly led to a flurry of lawsuits against model developers. Legal theories vary, but most are rooted in copyright: plaintiffs argue that use of their works to train the models was infringement; developers counter that their training is fair use. Meanwhile developers are making as many licensing deals as possible to stave off future litigation, and it’s a sound bet that the existing litigation is an elaborate scramble for leverage in settlement negotiations.

These cases can end one of three ways: rightsholders win, everybody settles, or developers win. As we’ve noted before, we think the developers have the better argument. But that’s not the only reason they should win these cases: while creators have a legitimate gripe, expanding copyright won’t protect jobs from automation. A win for rightsholders or even a settlement could also lead to significant harm, especially if it undermines fair use protections for research uses or artistic protections for creators. In this post and a follow-up, we’ll explain why. "

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/copyright-and-ai-cases-and-consequences

#AI #GenerativeAI #Copyright #AITraining #FairUse