82 Moreover, the scope of the Opinion is limited to the input stage of the ML process. It does not address the legal status of AI-generated outputs, which may, in certain circumstances, constitute infringement, even if the use of copyrighted materials during the training phase is deemed lawful. In sum, the Israeli Ministry of Justice Opinion seeks to offer a coherent framework that facilitates responsible innovation in ML and AI development, while safeguarding the underlying principles of copyright law and preserving incentives for creative production. Nonetheless, this Opinion delineates important limitations. For instance, the safe harbor it proposes would not extend to scenarios where an ML dataset is composed entirely of a single author’s works for the purpose of replicating and competing with that author’s market. Furthermore, this Opinion is confined to the input stage of the ML process; it does not address the legal status of AI-generated outputs, which may in some instances be infringing even if the training process itself is lawful. In sum, this Opinion seeks to offer a coherent framework that facilitates responsible innovation in ML and AI development, while safeguarding the underlying principles of copyright law and preserving incentives for creative production. To distill the practical implications of the U.S. Copyright Office’s findings, the following section outlines its five main takeaways: Key Findings of the USA Copyright Office Report Similar to the Opinion issued by the Israeli Ministry of Justice, the U.S. Copyright Office Report examines whether the widespread use of copyrighted works for training AI systems can be justified under the fair use doctrine. However, in contrast to the Israeli approach, the Copyright Office ultimately rejects the notion that training AI systems is inherently transformative. The Report characterizes the analogy between machine learning and human learning as fundamentally flawed. It further notes that while non-commercial uses, such as academic or research-driven activities, may qualify as fair use, commercial uses designed to generate AI outputs that replicate or closely resemble protected works are unlikely to fall within the scope of the exception. The Report also underscores the significance of one of the key fair use factors: the effect of the use on the potential market for the original work. If AIgenerated content serves as a substitute for the original or undermines market
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=