I think it would be totally incoherent to say that copyrighted information is essentially fair game to include in your model but the outputs of your model are privileged against being included in other models.
I'm not sure "competition" is necessarily the right word but I don't think that model creators and their political backers have a leg to stand on when complaining about distillation.
Yes, copyright requires a human - in much the same way that an LLM requires a prompt. There's a continuum of author involvement that has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
It's worth noting in your case that no determination of copyright was actually made by a court (well, almost: a court ruled that the monkey definitely didn't have copyright and that even if it did they wouldn't make PETA its guardian).
Some opinions were issued but those are non-binding and eventually the photographer gave up because litigating copyright is expensive.
captainbland · · focus · HN ↗
I'm not sure "competition" is necessarily the right word but I don't think that model creators and their political backers have a leg to stand on when complaining about distillation.
thih9 · · focus · HN ↗
SR2Z · · focus · HN ↗
It's entirely possible for AI output to be copyrighted if it meets the requirements; prompting an AI takes some skill.
behringer · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
Acquiring and setting up a camera for the right shot takes some skill. That does not matter.
SR2Z · · focus · HN ↗
It's worth noting in your case that no determination of copyright was actually made by a court (well, almost: a court ruled that the monkey definitely didn't have copyright and that even if it did they wouldn't make PETA its guardian).
Some opinions were issued but those are non-binding and eventually the photographer gave up because litigating copyright is expensive.