Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by madeofpalk on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @01:19PM
(#39016628)
Fair use is an argument to explain why you violated the license/copyright. It relies on the fact that you did make a copy without permission.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by munchler on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:00PM
(#39017335)
Fair use is not a copyright violation! It’s a limitation placed on copyright to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by encomiast on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:39PM
(#39017975)
It's seems just like a poor choice of words and semantic argument around the term "violate". Fair use is an affirmative defense — you concede you did this thing that would be illegal if not for this other extenuating information/circumstance. This is similar to claiming self-defense in a murder case — yes I killed that person, but it's not murder since I can show it was self-defense.
In this case it would be 'yes, I used this copyrighted work in a way that would be infringement were it not a fair use, but here's why it's fair-use.'
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by madeofpalk on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:44PM
(#39018041)
Thank you, yes - affirmative defense is exactly what I was trying to think of but couldn't remember.