[estebarb]

No, the edited wording still conveys the same meaning. My edit was to fix another grammar typo.

The social networks are distributing such content AND benefiting from selling ads on them. Adding ads on top is a derivative work.

Personally I'm on the side of penalizing the side that provides the input, not the output:

- OpenAI training on copyrighted works. - Users requesting custom works based on copyrighted IP

That is my opinion on how it should be layered, that's it. I'm happy to discuss why it should be that way or why not. As I put in other comment, my concern is that mandating copyright filtering o each generative tool would end up propagating to every single digital tool, which as society we don't really want.

[hrimfaxi]

I am curious why you are of the opinion that the user should be in trouble for requesting the copyright material and not the provider of the material. I feel like there is a distinction in something that was local-first compared to a SaaS. Like a local AI model that reproduced copyrighted works for your own use might not be problematic compared to a remote model reproducing a copyrighted work and distributing it over the internet to you. Most jurisdictions treat remote access across jurisdictional boundaries differently than completely local acts.