You clearly know so much about this stuff!
@carlianne said in AI art - lawsuit explanation:
I am not sure though if there will be an issue if the dataset itself is open source and therefore considered free use since it's not directly monetized?
Do you mean "Fair Use" rather than "free use"?
Fair use is defense argument used in a case in which a copyright violation HAS taken place but the infringer feels it should be allowed.
There are a number of factors go into determining if in fact a Fair Use defense excuses the "prima facie" (i.e. accepted as correct) infringement.
One of those is monetary impact. In some cases this means the infringer is making money from the copyright infringements, but a "fair use defense" argument can be stuck down even if the infringer isn't making money themselves, but is preventing the copyright owner from generating income from their own work.
An example would be an artist sells prints of their work.
An infringer makes prints of the artists work and hands them out for free. Now, the people who would normally pay the artist for the prints don't anymore because they are getting prints for free.
The companies using the dataset can claim it's not their fault (they didn't make the dataset) and the creators of the dataset can claim they aren't using it for profit. Unless I'm mistaken on how the dataset is set up.
I'd have to look into how the AI Image companies and Dataset companies are set up. My impression is that they are very closely linked. But regardless, the AI companies know very well that the datasets contain copyrighted images (they actively promote this fact to their users!) In my opinion making them as culpable for infringements as the dataset companies.