I honestly don't think it'll matter in most cases.
Once it's out there it's too late.

It's like how when a newspaper puts out fake news almost no one will read the correction afterwards and the fake news will keep being perpetuated.

Uhm Harvey Weinstein?
Bill Cosby was convicted originally too but I think his age played a bigger part in it being overturned than him being rich.
The notion that rich people are somehow immune tho is complete bullshit.

They can hire better lawyers yes but lawyers can't just let you get away with any crime.
Most questionably legal things rich people get away with too are legal loopholes ( especially when it comes to stuff like taxes ).
Rich people aren't murdering people and getting away with it in spite of evidence against them that's just not happening.

Human beings are not ai, I don't think that the two can just be compared.
A human being being influenced by another artist is not the same as an ai, and a human being can't copy another artist as accurately, broadly and quickly as an ai can.

Even if you practice Van Goghs work your entire life your work will never actually look like his there will always be noticeable differences.
There's a lot of artists who even do try to directly copy other artists styles and it's always very apparent and like a worse copycat.

The problem with ai too which is unique to it compared to humans is that it can be fed with an artists work and spit out finished illustrations in that style in seconds.
What is the point of hiring the artist who's work was input into the ai for it to learn from it?
The artist is essentially being competed out of their own work with no way of combating it or keeping up with it.
Not to mention that it also competes them out of their own search tag, when you search for some artists you literally get page after page of ai generations instead of the actual artists work.

Things like fair use take this stuff into consideration too, the damages or even potential damages caused to the person.
And ai is fundamentally different than humans in this regard, another human artist can never do what an ai and can't be judged the same.

This isn't really true at all, artists don't have a problem with art being used to teach ai so long as it's consensual and artists get compensated for it.

>There's legal precedent for this.

I think that people are getting ahead of themselves when making these claims, this is very new legal issues.
Context matters a lot here, and laws adapt to new technology or context all the time.

Imo I think it's a really creepy and worrisome precedent to set that they can just scrape everything they want.
A lot of very bad stuff has been found in these dataset including cp and stuff like isis footage, revenge porn and leaked nudes etc.
Even on a less horrifying note, it's also peoples personal photographs, medical records and before and after photos of operations, peoples private vacations, family photos, id's etc you get the idea.

I do find it a bit worrisome if they can just scrape everything they want online and use it for commercial purposes like this.
At least Disney using their own copyrighted work to train an ai wouldn't run into these ethical problems.