Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's likely defended due to being non-commericial and for the public good, as I posted with my link to the Harvard page above. That was for literal copying and pasting so the bar for transformativeness is higher, but with generative AI where it can produce wholly new code/images, I think it will also be deemed fair use.


Also, extracting for a new purpose is fair use of long standing, distinct from something like sampling for the same purpose of composing music.

Siskel and Ebert didn’t need to pay rights holders to extract from their works for public criticism.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: