News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train... by ska on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @02:10PM (#39017497)
Of course this all depends on jurisdiction, but e.g. in the US for example fair use does not show up [oops, see note] in the limitations and exceptions in the copyright definition (like e.g. government use does), but relies on case law, the "fair use doctrine". This means quite literally it is a framework for understanding the defence of a particular use based on precedent: the defendant(s) argued it.

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]

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.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

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.