"The AI companies are claiming fair use, but this argument is bogus. It's bogus because while they claim it's fair to use the work of creators as training data, they do multimillion-dollar deals with rights holders and publishers like Disney, and Condé Nast, and Vox, and Warner Music."
"AI companies have cited fair use to justify using content to train or contribute to their models without paying. These companies often argue they are using copyrighted content in a transformative way and not just regurgitating it verbatim. For Conte, this legal fair use loophole is utter quackery."
Patreon CEO Jack Conte argues that AI companies unfairly treat independent creators differently from major corporations. While AI firms cite fair use doctrine to justify using creator content for training without permission or compensation, they simultaneously negotiate multimillion-dollar licensing agreements with large rights holders like Disney, Condé Nast, and Warner Music. Conte contends this demonstrates a clear double standard: AI companies acknowledge that some copyrighted content requires permission and payment, yet deny the same protections to individual creators. He characterizes the fair use argument as fundamentally flawed, pointing out that AI companies' willingness to pay major corporations proves they recognize content value and could extend similar agreements to smaller creators.
#ai-training-data-ethics #creator-compensation #fair-use-doctrine #corporate-double-standards #intellectual-property-rights
Read at Fortune
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]