Raw LLM Responses

43:01 I have to disagree here and don't think that this section favors AI art at all, because the last sentence here absolutely applies to AI art: "And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part - or the "heart" - of the work." You said, that this section (not the quoted sentence, but the whole section) is in favor of AI art, because it only uses not only a "small amount", but even a "minuscule" amount of copyrighted material. But that is not true, it uses a minuscule amount of not only one but thousands of copyrighted materials to replicate something that is wholly unoriginal. In fact without the training data, which almost exclusively consists of copyrighted material, there would be nothing resembling the product that was prompted. So you could actually argue, that AI art not only uses a minuscule amount of copyrighted material, but actually consists almost all of copyrighted material. And even if you ignore all that, the sentence explicitly states why such examples are not considered fair, because the important part - the "heart" - was taken. If you generate a Simpson character or a Ghibli character with AI, you might create a totally unique image showing a scene or person, which was never in any Simpsons episode or Ghibli film, so there is no explicit copy & paste of anything from the original work. But the important part - the "heart" - was still taken. That is why no one would ever consider it fair use if you made an original show in the Simpsons style or something like that.