> Yet another is to argue it's a morally-agnostic technology like VHS or a photocopier, and the burden of using it in a socially acceptable way rests with the user.
There is a lot of case law that supports this interpretation, Sony v Universal being the most important as it introduced the notion of “commercially significant non-infringing uses”, of which there will be many by the time this hits trial and the appeals process.
Lawyers for these companies know this and the faster that can get people building and buying tools that are clearly non-infringing the more likely that these models are seen as fair-use.
However, if they want to keep the lawyers at their customer’s firms happy they will really need to come up with a way to show users if a work is likely to infringe on an existing work.
There is a lot of case law that supports this interpretation, Sony v Universal being the most important as it introduced the notion of “commercially significant non-infringing uses”, of which there will be many by the time this hits trial and the appeals process.
Lawyers for these companies know this and the faster that can get people building and buying tools that are clearly non-infringing the more likely that these models are seen as fair-use.
However, if they want to keep the lawyers at their customer’s firms happy they will really need to come up with a way to show users if a work is likely to infringe on an existing work.