> and it was put on the web so that it can be used, without any restrictions on what for
No, this is not true at all. A lot of things are put on the web with plenty of “restrictions on what for”. That’s why licenses exist. Creative Commons being an example of licenses with well defined limits on what you can and cannot do with the content.
Furthermore, a significant portion of content on the web was put there without permission: think piracy or revenge porn. AI systems have been trained on tons of pirated books.
> Since it's on the web, there really is an implied permission to use it privately for whatever you want.
There really is not. It’s just that if you’re using it privately then by definition no one else knows and thus no one can complain. It doesn’t mean that the creator condones whatever you’re doing.
> Some artists assume they have more rights than they really do and that other people aren't even allowed to mimic their style.
We’re not talking about “other people”. Another person mimicking your style is, to an extent, harmless because they’re also making a time investment to replicate your style. With the AI tools you can reproduce hundreds of knock offs in minutes.
We have to stop with this comparison of “what these AI systems are doing is fine because humans could also do it by hand”. It is not the same thing. Scale matters.
That material with restrictions on use would fall under the "grey area" he referred to. You're essentially not given permission to download/copy it if you're going to do the prohibited thing with it. But if it's just a random picture, there's an implied permission to download it and use it for yourself, since that's what it was put there for.
I'm trying to say that copyright restricts copying, not using. If you publish something on the internet, you implicitly give people limited permission to copy it so their browser can download it. Once it's on their computer, they're allowed to look at it with one eye closed if they choose, or even to modify it for their personal use or set it as their desktop background.
The only reason you are allowed to modify a copyrighted image for personal use is because that's considered fair use. The fact that you found it on a website is irrelevant.
Copyright literally restricts using the material. If you buy a book, you cannot sell tickets to an event where you read it out loud.
No, this is not true at all. A lot of things are put on the web with plenty of “restrictions on what for”. That’s why licenses exist. Creative Commons being an example of licenses with well defined limits on what you can and cannot do with the content.
Furthermore, a significant portion of content on the web was put there without permission: think piracy or revenge porn. AI systems have been trained on tons of pirated books.
> Since it's on the web, there really is an implied permission to use it privately for whatever you want.
There really is not. It’s just that if you’re using it privately then by definition no one else knows and thus no one can complain. It doesn’t mean that the creator condones whatever you’re doing.
> Some artists assume they have more rights than they really do and that other people aren't even allowed to mimic their style.
We’re not talking about “other people”. Another person mimicking your style is, to an extent, harmless because they’re also making a time investment to replicate your style. With the AI tools you can reproduce hundreds of knock offs in minutes.
We have to stop with this comparison of “what these AI systems are doing is fine because humans could also do it by hand”. It is not the same thing. Scale matters.