Will the legality of AI training on copyrighted works be settled by, and in favor of, the American Copyright Lobby, before 2026?

Broadly speaking, the "American Copyright Lobby" includes (but is not limited to) to the following organizations, and their surrogates:

  • Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)

  • Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)

  • Association of American Publishers (AAP)

  • Entertainment Software Association (ESA)

  • Copyright Alliance

  • American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)

  • Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)

  • Walt Disney Corporation

This market resolves YES if the following conditions come to pass before the resolution date:

  • A major law or court ruling with the force of law, on either the state or federal level, is passed/ruled, that:

  • Establishes/clarifies that the mere act of training an AI on copyrighted works (doesn't matter what kind -- images, video, text, music, etc) constitutes copyright infringement under certain conditions, in such a way:

  • That further establishes that the training practices used in any one of already-existing major AI projects, such as Stable Diffusion, GPT(X), Dall-E, Riffusion, or reasonable equivalents, would constitute copyright infringement under the new legal framework. (This is wholly apart from generating content with these tools, which this market is entirely agnostic about). AND FURTHER:

  • That any of the above "American Copyright Lobby" organizations or their surrogates participate prominently in the funding, lobbying, testifying, filing of Amicus Briefs, etc, of said law/ruling, AND:

  • That general public consensus, as judged in my sole opinion, seems to be that the American Copyright Lobby got most of what they wanted out of the law/ruling.

This is entirely independent and agnostic of whether, simultaneously and in parallel, said law/ruling also happens to achieve the goals of any other group -- such as independent working class artists and performers, for instance. It's solely judged based on whether the copyright lobby makes its presence prominently felt, and the law/ruling is crafted in a way that mostly fulfills their wishes, and it actually becomes the law of the land (or at least a state).

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

For clarity, does a district-level preliminary injunction count, or only a final Supreme Court ruling? If former (as I read criteria to read), Yes is meaningfully underpriced.

predicts YES

@DaveK The criteria reads: "A major law or court ruling with the force of law, on either the state or federal level, is passed/ruled"

So a plain reading would imply that a district-level ruling would in fact count. HOWEVER, I'll further stipulate that the ruling has to come down and also have the active force of law. So if a ruling comes down on the district level, but before it changes anyone's behavior it's immediately appealed and the actual force of the ruling doesn't actually practically come into play until way later when the next highest court finally makes it's decision, then that doesn't count.

But say a ruling comes down, and an injunction is then immediately put into place that actually comes into force, and that injunction does fulfills the rest of the criteria, then this would resolve YES. Even if said ruling is appealed and later overturned.

More related questions