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

251–260 of 806 posts

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

#251

Post by matkoniecz »

paulgb wrote: post #239
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 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.)

https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image....

Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earring, by Johannes Vermeer” by Stable Diffusion Right: Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer

This specific one is not copyright violation as it is old enough for copyright to expire. But the same may happen with other images.

from https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ and https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-to-the-ai-art-apocalypse...

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

#252

Post by Spivak »

paulgb wrote: post #239
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 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.)

It’s not a copyright violation to commission an artist to make you something in the style of another artist and it’s also not copyright infringement for the artist you hired to look at that artist’s work to learn what that style means. And it’s also not always infringement to draw another artist’s work in your own style same as reimplementing code.

If you “trace” another artists work the hammer comes down though. For Copilot it’s way easier to get it to obviously trace.

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

#253

Post by matkoniecz »

jzb wrote: post #214
makeitdouble wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the is exacty the gap the gp is mentionning: to a trained artist it is clear as water that the original image has been lifted wholesale, even if for instance the colors are adjusted here and there. You put it as a remix, but remixes are credited and expressed as such.

I haven’t seen any side by sides that seem like a lift. Any examples? I don’t see Midjourney (et al) as remixes, myself. More like “inspired by.”

https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image....

Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earring, by Johannes Vermeer” by Stable Diffusion Right: Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer

This specific one is not copyright violation as it is old enough for copyright to expire. But the same may happen with other images.

from https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ and https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-to-the-ai-art-apocalypse...

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

#254

Post by matkoniecz »

omnimus wrote: post #226
jzb wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t seen any side by sides that seem like a lift. Any examples? I don’t see Midjourney (et al) as remixes, myself. More like “inspired by.”

Its clear where the knowhow was lifted from it doesnt matter that if the final image is somewhat unique (almost every image is).

style is not copyrightable under current rules

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

#255

Post by patmorgan23 »

kodah wrote: post #160
cyanydeez wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, copyright is for people with copyright lawyers

That's not even a joke. One of the premises of a copyright is that you defend your intellectual property or lose it. If the system were more equitable then it would defend your copyright.

Your point about losing copyright is incorrect. But copyright absolutely was designed with corporations in mind not small individual creators. It was designed around TV,Movies, and print publishers, not around YouTube and Patreon.

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

#256

Post by [deleted] »

shadowgovt wrote: post #111
ianbutler wrote: post #85

I just tested it myself on a random c file I created in the middle of a rust project I'm working on, it reproduced his full code verbatim from just the function header so clearly it does regurgitate proprietary code unlike some people have said, I do not have his source so co-pilot isn't just using existing context. I've been finding co-pilot really useful but I'll be pausing it for now, and I'm glad I have only been…

Searching for the function names in his libraries, I'm seeing some 32,000 hits. I suspect he has a different problem which (thanks to Microsoft) is now a problem he has to care about: his code probably shows up in one or more repos copy-pasted with improper LGPL attribution. There'd be no way for Copilot to know that had happened, and it would have mixed in the code. (As a side note: understanding why an ML engine ou…

[deleted]

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

#257

Post by pavlov »

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…

Stable Diffusion sometimes reproduces the large watermarks used by stock photo providers on their free sample images. That’s embarrassing at the minimum, and potentially a trademark violation.

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

#258

Post by dataflow »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #248
dataflow wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my point is you don't have lawsuits over one simple code block.

This entire thread is about how copilot committed a copyright violation on a simple code block.

That code block is neither "simple like FizzBuzz" nor is it in a lawsuit. I feel like we're speaking past each other at this point.

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

#259

Post by fencepost »

Seems simple enough to start addressing. Don't sue Microsoft, subpoena them as part of your suit against unnamed companies violating the license. Request information on all public and private repositories that were generated in part using Copilot and which contain relevant code from which the licensing info has been stripped.

After all, Microsoft may not itself be infringing so there may not be a cause of action against them by the copyright holders - but there's probably cause against the (unknowing) infringers and they may have cause.

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

#260

Post by ShamelessC »

jrm4 wrote: post #250
acoustics wrote: post #6

I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI. For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged b…

Again, as a lawyer, I think it's really important to focus on intent. The Constitution gives us "To promote the progress of science and Useful Arts" (which we've expanded.) So question one in the back of our heads should be "Are we promoting progress here?" That most often means protecting the little guy, and that's why I think it's mostly necessary, and also must be evaluated very skeptically.

Define progress.

Good luck.

Post reply on HN