What’s happening is more clear. The copyright clause is broken if they are distributing the novels through their models. But this can only happen through TOS breaking which is not intended usage policy. Which means the value of their product comes from transformation and not redistribution.
If the main value came from redistribution, I agree. But that’s not the case. They don’t intend to make any money in that way.
> The copyright clause is broken if they are distributing the novels through their models.
No, the copyright clause was broken when they copied the works without having the right to do so. They would have violated copyright even if they just downloaded (without permission) all those works and threw them away immediately. Furthermore, copyright covers transformations to the work, it doesn’t matter if they transformed the work or are redistributing it without change. They violated copyright. Period.
Why do you think the court spent time trying to prove multiple forms of violations? If what you said were true then they would stop with the first violation and end the case.
Multiple counts make for a stronger case, which increases the likelihood of winning and making the punitive damages higher.
If you break into a home, rob the contents, and kill the owners, you’re not going to be tried just for breaking in, you’re going to be tried for everything.
If the main value came from redistribution, I agree. But that’s not the case. They don’t intend to make any money in that way.