Yup, No one being able to produce a copy of something you created for a decade after it was first published - entirely reasonable.

People profiting off of artificial exclusivity 60 years after the author died 50 years after publishing a work - not reasonable.

Do you think that other artists should be allowed to look at your work that you post online and as a result they become a better artist because of it?

The AI companies shown that they are incapable of regulating themselves on this topic, and so people with art at stake should force their hand.

Open source or not doesn't matter here, what matters is the copyright. If even Disney can defend works they own (whatever their ethics), so should anyone else.

That's exactly what's at stake, waiting to be sufficiently litigated. And I hope that creators will win, and that they would be able to tell if they allow richest big tech companies in the world to train on their creations.

Agreed that interim solution should be to make all "AI" work public domain since it treats everything it trains on as public domain. I'm for it because it would would immediately stop being profitable for commercial enterprises. Then check who they ripped off and settle any financial claims and damages before moving on to establish license for already created output.

IMO, we need to ask: What benefits the people? or What is in the public interest?

That should be the only thing of importance. That's probably controversial. Some will call it socialism. It is pretty much how the US Constitution sees it, though.

Maybe you agree with this. But when you talk about "models trained on public data" you are basically thinking in terms of property rights, and not in terms of the public benefit.

The models (ie the weights specifically) may not be copyrightable, anyways. There's no copyright on the result of number crunching. Once the model is further fine-tuned, there might be copyright, but it's still unlike anything covered by copyright in the past.

One analogy I have is a 3D engine. The engineers design the look of the typical output by setting parameters, but that does not create a specific copyright on the parameters. There's copyright on the design documents, the code, the UI, if any and maybe other stuff. It's not quite the same, though.

Some jurisdictions have IP on databases. I think that would cover AI models. If I am right, then that means that any license agreements that come with models are ineffective in the US.

However, to copy these models, you first need to get your hands on them. They are still trade secrets, so don't on leaks.

That's how it is now.

But even under the current rules and system we are meant it have protections. These companies could see consequences. Even in capitalism, which serves capital, even in America, which does so even more fiercely - they have stolen.

Think about WHY only the absurdly wealthy companies would be able to purchase all of that data though. Because that data has immense value. Many authors and artists would certainly refuse to sell. I care that few companies hoard so much wealth and power, but I care more about the current issue that companies with wealth and power dont even have to spend a dime because they are just stealing.

Dont solve the problem of power consolidation on the dime of peoples life's work.