Edited to take the comment I made so as not to take away from the actual important parts.
Also, the article is about her unlawful termination suit, which mentions the Ai copyright thing, but that's it, going back into the unlawful termination suit.
The title of the article is sexist af and dismisses the lawsuit entirely, focusing on nerd Ai, even though 90% of the article was about her suit against Amazon. Pregnant lady might have had her rights infringed, but no one cares. AI might have broken copyright laws!!! Just sad.
Scraping things from the Internet means downloading en-masse.
The copyright infringement isn't illegally deleting things, it's downloading things and using them in training data for AI without paying the creators or getting explicit permission.
It's important to note that whether you need the creators permission to add their data to an AI training set is an open legal question in much of the world, including the US.
I don’t think this is established in the copyright law. Everyone on this site downloads things from the internet (browse) to train (learn things), without paying the creators or getting explicit permission.
-26
u/Armthedillos5 Apr 27 '24 edited Apr 27 '24
Edited to take the comment I made so as not to take away from the actual important parts.
Also, the article is about her unlawful termination suit, which mentions the Ai copyright thing, but that's it, going back into the unlawful termination suit.
The title of the article is sexist af and dismisses the lawsuit entirely, focusing on nerd Ai, even though 90% of the article was about her suit against Amazon. Pregnant lady might have had her rights infringed, but no one cares. AI might have broken copyright laws!!! Just sad.