Copyright law (EU, US, UK, international under the Berne Convention) covers reproduction, distribution and exhibition. That's exactly what those FBI warnings on VHS movies used to say. Distribution and exhibition are prohibited along with reproduction.
In all the cases I mentioned, the only legal way to make any exception to that is if the copying does not harm the interests of the author or reduce the market value of the work. These are the actual laws.
"training a machine learning model is roughly equivalent to a human brain consuming copyrighted works"
A few clear differences:
1. The person "training" a machine learning model doesn't even need to view the work. They copy a file. They do not study or learn from it.
2. A human brain doesn't rely on a 100% verbatim digital copy of the work. To the extent that a brain "makes a copy" of what it observes, it is impossible for it not to.
3. Copyright law (almost everywhere) explicitly applies to making digital copies of binary files of a work (without which it is not possible to "train" a model using the work). Nowhere does it ever apply to a human brain when a person looks at the work.
Not all the things you mentioned are considered "reproduction". A cover of a song is a derivative work, and requires compensation. Showing a movie is exhibition, and is explicitly addressed in copyright laws. These things are not just considered "some form of reproduction".
The laws actually exist and are easy to find and read.
"Humans have always learnt by studying what's out there already."
Neither an AI model nor an AI developer who programs that model are actually studying "what's out there already".
One is copying files, and the other is running algorithms on copied files. And then the first one is raking in $$$ while bankrupting the authors of those files. That's illegal in the US, UK, EU and under the terms of the Berne Convention.
The law most definitely distinguishes between the rights of a human and the rights of a software program running on a computer.
AI does not read, look at or listen to anything. It runs algorithms on binary data.
An AI developer who uses millions of files to program their AI system also does not read, look at or listen to all of that stuff. They copy it.
That is the part explicitly covered by international copyright law. It is not possible to use some file to "train" a ML model except by copying that file. That's just a fact. It wasn't the computer that went out and read or looked at the work. It was a human who took a binary copy of it, ran some algorithms on it without even looking at it, and published/sold/gave access to the software.
AI software is a work by an author; not an author.
I've worked in many domains, including arts, and I'm especially interested in audio-related work, but I have a deep love for any kind of programming. I look forward to proving it.
I'm a USA citizen, residence permit in EU.
Native English speaker, also C1 in Romanian, B1 in German.
In all the cases I mentioned, the only legal way to make any exception to that is if the copying does not harm the interests of the author or reduce the market value of the work. These are the actual laws.
"training a machine learning model is roughly equivalent to a human brain consuming copyrighted works"
A few clear differences: 1. The person "training" a machine learning model doesn't even need to view the work. They copy a file. They do not study or learn from it. 2. A human brain doesn't rely on a 100% verbatim digital copy of the work. To the extent that a brain "makes a copy" of what it observes, it is impossible for it not to. 3. Copyright law (almost everywhere) explicitly applies to making digital copies of binary files of a work (without which it is not possible to "train" a model using the work). Nowhere does it ever apply to a human brain when a person looks at the work.
Not all the things you mentioned are considered "reproduction". A cover of a song is a derivative work, and requires compensation. Showing a movie is exhibition, and is explicitly addressed in copyright laws. These things are not just considered "some form of reproduction".
The laws actually exist and are easy to find and read.