Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by 0xcde4c3db on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:21PM
(#39017699)
Maybe there's some nuance of your description that I'm missing, but fair use is codified as a limitation to copyright in US statute (although not until 1976) [1]. Application of it to any given situation is still heavily dependent on case law, though.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by ska on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:41PM
(#39018007)
Fair enough - I had forgotten that quirk in the US situation, it was added to statute in a way that doesn't really define it, so you are back to case law.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by munchler on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:17PM
(#39017635)
I think it makes a difference, because it shifts the burden of proof. If fair use is a kind of infringement, then it’s up to the “infringer” to prove fair use. I think that’s ethically and legally backwards: the copyright holder should have to prove that the use was not fair.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train...
by ska on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:39PM
(#39017972)
Ethics aside, and again US specific, but the supreme court literally defines it as an affirmative defence.
Even this is a bit murky though, as a district court has argued it goes beyond that.
It's a bit of a quibble to differentiate between allowable infringement or exception, here, so i've edited original.
[note: 0xcde4c3db points out correctly that it does actually show up since 1976, but in a way the defers much of the definition back to case law, so same effect]