Should there be a clause for AI?

[Kuno Woudt]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2025, at 12:32 PM, Vasileios Valatsos wrote:
> On 12/7/25 17:49, Richard Fontana wrote:
>  > But that's not because of some special legal situation, and it's really
>  > no different from other modes of copyright infringement. If I write a
>  > novel, and it's used to train a model (let's assume I don't have a
>  > copyright infringement claim based on the act of training, an issue
>  > that has been raised in a number of current lawsuits in the US), and
>  > the model can be shown to produce output that's substantially similar
>  > to my novel, I might have a copyright infringement claim against
>  > someone in connection with the use of that model.
>
> Yes, I fully agree. My point is that with the current state of things, 
> it is very problematic to figure out *who* that someone is.
>
> It obviously can't be the end user, because they has no control over the 
> stochastic output of the model, and they can't possibly reference the 
> output and compare to figure out if it may violate any copyright/copyleft.

Why would it not be the end user?   They have control over whether they
publish the output or not.  I don't think copyright law cares about the
practicality of a user determining whether their tools generated copyrighted
output.

If I manage to accidentally or on purpose convince a chatbot to output
substantial chunks of a literary work -- I'd expect that publishing that output
would be copyright infringement regardless of whether I know that what
I'm publishing is a pre-existing copyrighted work.