If there was an actual case, the question would be whether the defendant had access to the original work. If the original work was used to train the AI model, then the answer is yes. It's not necessary for the model to contain a copy of the original work.
That wouldn’t be the question because nobody is disputing the access to the original work. You mentioned two factors. That’s the first, which nobody is questioning. The thing people are questioning is the second factor, the reproduction of the original work.
A copy must be made for there to be copyright infringement. Who has shown a copy has been made? If a copy has been observed to occur, it’s trivial to demonstrate copyright infringement. Who has done this?
I may have misunderstood. I thought we were talking about an AI output that might be substantially similar to an original used to train the AI. If we're considering only the use of the original as a training image, then I don't know if that would infringe.
