It’s important to separate the training AI part from the conventional copyright violation. A lot of these companies downloaded stuff they shouldn’t have downloaded and that is a copyright violation in its own right. But the training part has been ruled as fair use in a few prominent cases already, such as the Anthropic one.
Beyond even that, there are generative AIs that were trained entirely on material that the trainer owned the license to outright - Adobe’s “Firefly” model, for example.
So I have yet to see it established that generative AI inherently involves “asset theft.” You’ll have to give me something specific. That page has far too many cases jumbled together covering a whole range of related subjects, some of them not even directly AI-related (I notice one of the first ones in the list is “A federal judge accused a third-party law firm of attempting to “trick” authors out of their record $1.5 billion copyright class action settlement with Anthropic.” That’s just routine legal shenanigans).
It’s important to separate the training AI part from the conventional copyright violation. A lot of these companies downloaded stuff they shouldn’t have downloaded and that is a copyright violation in its own right. But the training part has been ruled as fair use in a few prominent cases already, such as the Anthropic one.
Beyond even that, there are generative AIs that were trained entirely on material that the trainer owned the license to outright - Adobe’s “Firefly” model, for example.
So I have yet to see it established that generative AI inherently involves “asset theft.” You’ll have to give me something specific. That page has far too many cases jumbled together covering a whole range of related subjects, some of them not even directly AI-related (I notice one of the first ones in the list is “A federal judge accused a third-party law firm of attempting to “trick” authors out of their record $1.5 billion copyright class action settlement with Anthropic.” That’s just routine legal shenanigans).