News: 0177456103

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

US Copyright Office to AI Companies: Fair Use Isn't 'Commercial Use of Vast Troves of Copyrighted Works' (yahoo.com)

(Monday May 12, 2025 @04:26AM (EditorDavid) from the breaking-training dept.)


Business Insider [1]tells the story in three bullet points :

- Big Tech companies depend on content made by others to train their AI models.

- Some of those creators say using their work to train AI is copyright infringement.

- The U.S. Copyright Office just [2]published a report that indicates it may agree.

> The office released on Friday its latest in a series of reports exploring copyright laws and artificial intelligence. The report addresses whether the copyrighted content AI companies use to train their AI models qualifies under the [3]fair use doctrine . AI companies are probably not going to like what they read...

>

> AI execs argue they haven't violated copyright laws because the training falls under fair use. According to the U.S. Copyright Office's new report, however, it's not that simple. "Although it is not possible to prejudge the result in any particular case, precedent supports the following general observations," the office said. "Various uses of copyrighted works in AI training are likely to be transformative. The extent to which they are fair, however, will depend on what works were used, from what source, for what purpose, and with what controls on the outputs — all of which can affect the market."

>

> The office made a distinction between AI models for research and commercial AI models. "When a model is deployed for purposes such as analysis or research — the types of uses that are critical to international competitiveness — the outputs are unlikely to substitute for expressive works used in training," the office said. "But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries ."

The report says outputs "substantially similar to copyrighted works in the dataset" are less likely to be considered transformative than when the purpose "is to deploy it for research, or in a closed system that constrains it to a non-substitutive task."

"A day after the office released the report, President Donald Trump [4]fired its director , Shira Perlmutter, a spokesperson told Business Insider ."



[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-copyright-office-thoughts-ai-235936541.html

[2] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[4] https://apnews.com/article/copyright-director-firing-government-trump-7ab99992a96131bce7de853b66feec68



I cannot see this stopping the AI spiders (Score:3)

by Alain Williams ( 2972 )

Effective enforcement will not be easy.

The other problem that the spiders do is to overload servers. They do not seem to be gentle in the way that most search engine spiders are.

Re: (Score:2)

by buck-yar ( 164658 )

Sure it is. Encourage whistleblowers to come forward. "I did this" from a software engineer in court. There might even be hard evidence in communications, as some of these employees knew what they were doing was wrong and raised objections.

Penalties, per the FBI warning on home VHS tapes, 5 years, $250,000 fine, and felony so you lose your voting and gun rights for life. If its per violation, some AI execs might be looking at hundreds of years in prison and fines exceeding the value of these large tech co

Repeat after me (Score:1, Insightful)

by blahabl ( 7651114 )

Copyright is not a natural right. It is a privilege given to content creators for the benefit of mankind not for the benefit of content creators. And to anyone saying "copyright does not allow use by AI" an answer of "well, maybe it should" is very valid.

Re: (Score:2)

by greytree ( 7124971 )

A well-made factual point.

So of course it is downvoted.

Any mod who did so should be banned immediately.

Re: Repeat after me (Score:2)

by Kelxin ( 3417093 )

Agreed. The entire moderation system on this platform is screwed.

Re: Repeat after me (Score:2)

by reanjr ( 588767 )

It may be a "valid" response, but it's hardly compelling. Your argument is that copyright should be completely upended and author protections should simply vanish into an LLM. Yo make that argument, you're going to have to start at first principles to explain why compensating artists is no longer beneficial to mankind.

Re: Repeat after me (Score:2)

by PseudoThink ( 576121 )

Agreed. It is a valid discussion and reducing it to a black and white generalization is absurd.

A complete win for Western content creators would likely leave AI development and advancement crippled compared to countries where it is unfettered. Our content creators can sip their kombuchas while foreign AI dominates the future.

A complete win for AI companies would likely result in continued, flagrant abuse of created content for profit in a manner which competes with the content creators. Doesn't seem righ

Entrumpy keeps one guessing (Score:1)

by Tablizer ( 95088 )

> "A day after the office released the report, President Donald Trump fired its director, Shira Perlmutter,

Which mean the report could soon flip 180.

Correction (Score:1)

by Tablizer ( 95088 )

"means"

People to US Copyright office (Score:4, Insightful)

by greytree ( 7124971 )

People of the world to the US Copyright office:

95 years is a fucking abomination.

Copyright is not fit for its purpose of encouraging creativity.

Re:People to US Copyright office (Score:4, Interesting)

by Errol backfiring ( 1280012 )

The US Copyright office might even agree. They did not make the rules.

Intersting take (Score:3)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

Copyright law has never considered speed or volume of production, yet now the copyright office is claiming that precisely this implicates fair use. That said I'm right there with them when it comes to illegal access.

How much did grandma have to pay for downloading one mp3? I hope Meta pays the same amount multiplied by all the works they pirated.

Re: (Score:2)

by pjt33 ( 739471 )

> Copyright law has never considered speed or volume of production, yet now the copyright office is claiming that precisely this implicates fair use.

I've only read the summary, but I'm not seeing anything related to speed or volume of production. Am I overlooking something?

The problem isn't only about tech giants (Score:2)

by el84 ( 10322963 )

While it is patently immoral for big internet companies to basically steal the entirety of human creative output, in order to train their stupid (so-called) ai models and fill their future pockets, if we don't do it then bad guys with absolutely no morals in far flung parts of the world will do it anyway, OK we can have the smug sense that we have done the right thing when we are the penniless vassals of our current global technology competitors, who will remain unnamed out of courtesy.

Re: (Score:2)

by martin-boundary ( 547041 )

While it's immoral to [steal from|rape|torture|slander|kill|enslave] my neighbours, there are people out there, somewhere, who are absolutely willing to [steal from|rape|torture|slander|kill|enslave] my neighbours. I can be smug about not doing it to them myself, but it's just a matter of time until they become victims, so it's really ok if I also [steal from|rape|torture|slander|kill|enslave] my neighbours. Besides, I'm bored thinking about implications.

Re: The problem isn't only about tech giants (Score:2)

by reanjr ( 588767 )

No, they wouldn't. The amount of money spent on this shit only makes sense if you're going to widely commercially target the U.S. and the wider West. Bad actors would never be able to come to market.

"He did decide, though, that with more time and a great deal of mental
effort, he could probably turn the activity into an acceptable perversion."
-- Mick Farren, "When Gravity Fails"