Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is “theft” misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they’re extracting general patterns and concepts - the “Bob Dylan-ness” or “Hemingway-ness” - not copying specific text or images.
This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in “vector space”. When generating new content, the AI isn’t recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it’s learned.
This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It’s more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others’ work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can’t be owned - only particular expressions of them.
Moreover, there’s precedent for this kind of use being considered “transformative” and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.
While it’s understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it “theft” is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn’t make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.
For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744
If Apple (or any metaphorical creator you want to insert in here) doesn’t want you using their product to make your movie, too bad. You bought their product. Even if millions of people end up watching your movie, they can’t turn around and ask for any more. You acquired their product fairly like anybody else. Your transaction is done. If they don’t like it, they should ask every person who’s ever made or contributed to any version of the components in their device and see how they feel about it.
Now people using ChatGPT to impersonate artists shouldn’t do that. But those individual people should be prosecuted. Nobody’s confused that Andy Warhol might be quickly painting the pictures and sending them over in the DALL-E chat and you can’t honestly make the argument that people aren’t buying Stephen King books because they can type “Write me a Stephen King novel” into the prompt generator.