>>10896170Thanks! I should really get back to it and finish my planned Acrid and Captain, at least. I've got parts in a bin, I just never got back around to it.
>>10897502Yes, sorry, I was being reductive to make fun of them (though they HAVE brought up that they can't afford to license the works). I know they are arguing it's fair use, but I think that argument will fail, because it isn't fair use, especially when you consider the way they advertise their services. Phoneposting so too much to write out, but when people are using your AI as a substitute for buying a book, reading an article, commissioning an artist, etc, that is going to do damage to those industries and cause less people to write, make art, etc. And people ARE doing those things. AI image generation prompts I've seen are very obviously recreating specific artists' style.
Google's book search, for example, was built VERY carefully to set themselves up for the inevitable legal challenge (which they won). It was designed to make it impossible to consume the original work in its entirety via the search, and they were able to make the case that, of anything, it helps more people find the books that contain the information they are looking for. If anything, that could reasonably be a GOOD thing for authors and publishers.
Generative AI tools (at least, the ones I've seen) don't help you find the source material, and in fact, it generally couldn't tell you where it got the info, even IF they wanted to implement attribution. It's far from a slam dunk, but I think we are about to see some real copyright law change for this.
