Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 806 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#231

Post by matheusmoreira »

crazygringo wrote: post #223

As some other commenters have noted, it seems like the copyrighted code is being copied and pasted into many other codebases (shadowgovt says they found 32,000 hits), which are then (illegally) representing an incorrect license. So obviously the source of the error is one or more third parties, not Microsoft, and it's obviously impossible for Microsoft to be responsible in advance for what other people claim to licen…

> So obviously the source of the error is one or more third parties, not Microsoft, and it's obviously impossible for Microsoft to be responsible in advance for what other people claim to license.

No. Look at the insane YouTube copystrike situation. Why shouldn't Microsoft be held to the same standards?

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#232

Post by stuartd »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #222
rtkwe wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think copilot is a clearer copyright violation than any of the stable diffusion projects though because code has a much narrower band of expression than images. It's really easy to look at the output of CoPilot and match it back to the original source and say these are the same. With stable diffusion it's much closer to someone remixing and aping the images than it is reproducing originals. I haven't been following…

I don’t think copilot is intrinsically a copyright violation, as you seem to be alluding to. Examples like this seem to be more controversial, but I’m not sure there’s a clear copyright violation there either. If you asked every developer on earth to implement FizzBuzz, how many actually different implementations would you get? Probably not very many. Who should own the copyright for each of them? Would the outcome b…

> If you asked every developer on earth to implement FizzBuzz, how many actually different implementations would you get?

Thousands at least. Some of which would actually work.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#233

Post by QuantumSeed »

foobarbecue wrote: post #204
tpxl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded. I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor,…

I'm not even a good cellist and YouTube has put copyright claims on the crappy practice videos I have of me playing Saint-Saëns.

I suspect a video of you playing literally anything on the cello--even an improvised song or a random motif--is likely to get reported as a copyright violation when uploaded to YouTube.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#234

Post by SrslyJosh »

ralph84 wrote: post #9

Ok. So instead of whining about it on Twitter sue GitHub. No matter what you think of Copilot, establishing some case law on AI-generated code will be beneficial to everyone.

You're going to chip in, right? And help fundraise? Because it would take millions of dollars to mount a successful legal attack over this.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#235

Post by tremon »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #171
msbarnett wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Memes generally would not fall under the category of non-copyrighted material; they’re most of the time extremely copyrighted material just being used without permission. And even a wholly original work an artist sarcastically puts a Getty watermark and then licensed under Creative Commons or something would fall into very murky territory – the Getty watermark itself is the intellectual property of Getty. The origina…

You could argue that mocking the Getty logo like that is some form of fair use, which would be a backdoor through which it can end up as a legitimate element of a public domain work, in which case it would be fair game. I agree with you that it is also possible that people posted Getty thumbnails to some sites as though they are public domain, and that is how the AIs learned the watermark.

Fair use does not make a work public domain; it merely helps the creator of the derivative work defend their case in court. But neither the original nor the derivative becomes public domain after a successful fair use defense.

Not a lawyer, of course, but I think slapping the Getty logo on a work claiming "fair use" and then releasing the work under public domain would be a case of misrepresentation, because Getty still has a copyright claim on your work. Regardless of the copyright status, it's still a clear trademark violation to me.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#236

Post by dataflow »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #222
rtkwe wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think copilot is a clearer copyright violation than any of the stable diffusion projects though because code has a much narrower band of expression than images. It's really easy to look at the output of CoPilot and match it back to the original source and say these are the same. With stable diffusion it's much closer to someone remixing and aping the images than it is reproducing originals. I haven't been following…

I don’t think copilot is intrinsically a copyright violation, as you seem to be alluding to. Examples like this seem to be more controversial, but I’m not sure there’s a clear copyright violation there either. If you asked every developer on earth to implement FizzBuzz, how many actually different implementations would you get? Probably not very many. Who should own the copyright for each of them? Would the outcome b…

> If you asked every developer on earth to implement FizzBuzz, how many actually different implementations would you get?

Does it matter? If you examined every copyright lawsuit on earth over code, how many of them would actually be over FizzBuzz?

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#237

Post by moron4hire »

Aeolun wrote: post #218
tpxl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded. I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor,…

Diffusion of responsibility. When Joe rando plays his song, it’s easy to see the offender and do something about it. When it’s a faceless mass of 100k employees…? Not so much.

The "Joe Rando" example is of playing a song that predates the copyright system.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#238

Post by AmericanChopper »

stuartd wrote: post #232
AmericanChopper wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think copilot is intrinsically a copyright violation, as you seem to be alluding to. Examples like this seem to be more controversial, but I’m not sure there’s a clear copyright violation there either. If you asked every developer on earth to implement FizzBuzz, how many actually different implementations would you get? Probably not very many. Who should own the copyright for each of them? Would the outcome b…

> If you asked every developer on earth to implement FizzBuzz, how many actually different implementations would you get? Thousands at least. Some of which would actually work.

There’s a finite number of ways to implement a working FizzBuzz (or anything else) in any given language, that aren’t substantially similar, is my point. At least without introducing pointless code for the explicit purpose of making it look different.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#239

Post by paulgb »

rtkwe wrote: post #94
tpxl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded. I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor,…

I think copilot is a clearer copyright violation than any of the stable diffusion projects though because code has a much narrower band of expression than images. It's really easy to look at the output of CoPilot and match it back to the original source and say these are the same. With stable diffusion it's much closer to someone remixing and aping the images than it is reproducing originals. I haven't been following…

I don’t know of any examples of images being wholly recreated, but it’s certainly possible to use the name of some living artists to get work in their style. In those cases, it seems like not such a leap to say that the AI has obviously seen that artist’s work and that the output is a derivative work. (The obvious counterargument is that this is the same as a human looking at an artist’s work and aping the style.)

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#240

Post by AmericanChopper »

dataflow wrote: post #236
AmericanChopper wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think copilot is intrinsically a copyright violation, as you seem to be alluding to. Examples like this seem to be more controversial, but I’m not sure there’s a clear copyright violation there either. If you asked every developer on earth to implement FizzBuzz, how many actually different implementations would you get? Probably not very many. Who should own the copyright for each of them? Would the outcome b…

> If you asked every developer on earth to implement FizzBuzz, how many actually different implementations would you get? Does it matter? If you examined every copyright lawsuit on earth over code, how many of them would actually be over FizzBuzz?

The same rationale applies to any other simple code block, as I elaborated on.
Post reply on HN