The fun question is anyway if a ML model is copyright protectable. Probably not as it is produced by an algorithm (which even is GPL'ed). So the only tool would have been watermarking and pulling NDA type clauses, however a Google form seems not the best way in the first place also it is close to impossible to identify the leak (if they are not as stupid as it seems). Or am I missing anything? One backdoor would be if they included copyrighted material in the training and show how this can be extracted from the model. Maybe it the whole stunt was about trying out how the legal system works in those cases :)
commercial derivative works have always been legal when you did not agree to other terms.
one person broke their agreement with Meta, they're the only person that has a problem and the only person who gets to find out if the agreement was applicable at all.
if you released a chat bot that could be prompted to regurgitate some copyrighted information, so what? it just proves that you didn't need the $30 million in funding yet to train your own because you are using an existing model. So either use the funding for that or don't sell shares or a product based on that pretext. Nobody else has a problem.
Anything I missed? Now I wouldn't reshare the model, but aside from use and commercial use of its output? Not everyone gets their way, that's not controversial.
photos are copyrightable by the person taking the photo only because they decided where and when to press a button. the rest are algorithms and hardware.
I believe the AI models would also be copyrightable as such, subject to arguments that the underlying data was protected and thus it was subject to prior copyrights instead
