This will see its day in court, and clearly indeed the meaning of the verb "train" will feature prominently in the debate.
I tend to side with reliance on dictionaries for the meaning of words, and in my understanding the courts also do.
If you load up only batman pictures on your model you will clearly only produce batman pictures. No one is being dumb here that does not want to be, I am sorry.
Perhaps. Or, more likely I think, your argument is weak and doesn’t contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
Personally, I downvoted you do to my decades old rule of “downvote messages that complain about downvoting.” I don’t always downvote whiny comments, but I always downvote whiny comments about downvotes. (and I will be downvoting my own message as I am both pedantic and reliable).
That’s not what I’m claiming though. I’m saying I take a model that has been trained on Batman and other things and I produce Spider-Man. If your point of view is to believed, the Batman copyright holder can sue me for producing a work that contains Spider-Man.
That is not a definition that people use, nor the legal system
> Taking data and putting it into any form of storage, ie weights in a model, is called copying. Producing an output out of the gathered data is then a step in distribution.
It isn’t though.
If I train on Batman and I produce Spider-Man, the Batman copyright holder cannot sue me. It would be dumb to suggest otherwise.