It's not being "rejected entirely". That is mendacious editorializing. Generative AI products are being rejected unless you affirm that you have rights to the entirety of the training data set.
> That you probably don't need rights to the training set in the US
Even if that is true--and it's not sure to be--Valve is within their rights to demand additional coverage.
> Humans can look at a collection of copyrighted images and draw a new picture. The legal basis for holding AIs to a higher standard is weak.
Horseshit and worse words. Computers aren't people. They create derivative works from pushing inputs through mathematical models. The inputs are unerasable and the claims to the otherwise by the AI hustler class exist only to be able to profit off human effort without paying for it.
> Valve is within their rights to demand additional coverage.
As a near-monopoly gatekeeper, Valve is vulnerable to antitrust charges.
FTC is apparently about to go after Amazon.[1] US antitrust policy did far too little for too many years. EU competition policy is more aggressive.[2] The EU competition authorities already fined Valve for selling geo-blocked content that only worked in some EU countries. That's a violation of the basic Single Market rules of the EU.
What's wrong with that?