> "We are working only with properly licensed"
...versus:
> "fair use"
You're smart enough to know these are very different things - saying you believe you are protected by fair use, and claiming that the data is "properly licensed." In legal there is a colossal difference, you went from say you were authorized to use something to you believe you are unauthorized but still permitted due to fair use.
Our model is not a derivative of Whisper but we do use the transcripts (and encoder outputs) in our data preprocessing. I am convinced this data cannot be regarded as a derivative of the (proprietary) Whisper training set. Whisper itself is open-source (MIT) and has no special TOS (unlike, say, ChatGPT).
WhisperSpeech itself is trained on mostly Public Domain and some CC-BY-SA recordings. We are working on adding more data and we will provide clearer documentation on all the licenses.
Until courts or lawmakers make it clearer I personally believe non-generative models (Whisper, ResNet, DINOv2) should be legally trainable on publicly released data. Generative models (image or video generation, TTS, LLMs?) should be held to a much higher scrutiny since their outputs can potentially compete the creators who put a lot of creativity into their art. That not true for an ImageNet-trained classification model or Whisper ASR.