It is irritating that neural nets are treated with kid gloves where human creators are left to fend for themselves in the muck of fair use doctrine. If it walks like a copy machine, quacks like a copy machine, swims like a copy machine, then you should probably assume that the transformative nature of its works is heavily dependent on human interaction and creation: it is the operators' choice to prompt away from rote vomiting that gets something interesting out of the system.
Also, I would like to read more about the ethics of context. It's nothing short of absurd that we grant all these online entities blanket permissions when we really mean "show my pictures to my friends in the way the interface indicates" and then turn around and find that copyright law really meant that what we'd actually clicked on was a waiver for Zuckerberg to own our facial structures forever. Intent is always contextual and it's very frustrating how ill-matched to that current conceptual definitions are.
The part at the end about data sets is dead on, IMO.
Comment with a webmention, or with commentpara.de