Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any precedent where copyright was focused on the input rather than the final published work?
Compilers
Object code is a derivative work I think.
So no. Compilers do not count.
Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
71–80 of 321 posts
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#72There are three copyright issues here; datasets, model weights, and model outputs. Dataset copyright is pretty well defined and things can often be used under fair use. Fair use decisions are done with a four prong test and really decided by the courts on a case-by-case basis. Model weights cannot currently be copyrighted. They are the output of a mechanical process over the dataset. However, software faced a similar…
Who do you think should hold the copyright on the model weights, the copyright holders of the individual works comprising the dataset or the ones who assembled the dataset?
Depends who you think holds the copyright on the SHA256 hash of an image.
Model weights are even less specific then that number, since they don't represent any specific source input at all.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#73I believe we first need to answer the question of whether the copyright of the AI model’s source text or images affects the output. My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its…
I don’t think it makes sense for both model builders and the model’s users to separately obtain licenses for the same works used in the training set. A model trained on several copyrighted data sources cannot somehow be used in a way depending on a subset of those sources. So all parameters of usage and compensation should be settled by contract between the model builder and copyrighted data supplier, before the copy…
I slightly disagree, in that I think the person using the tool should bear the burden of copyright. I.e. if the model outputs something under copywrite it merely can't be republished. In this same way, i can use Photoshop on proprietary data but I can't necessarily sell the results.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#74I believe we first need to answer the question of whether the copyright of the AI model’s source text or images affects the output. My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its…
Because the cat is out of the bag so to speak, any attempt to force ai companies to generate their own content to train on means we are signing up for a future where only multi billion dollar companies are in control.
If they were truly forced to do this, even they would find it difficult.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#75I believe we first need to answer the question of whether the copyright of the AI model’s source text or images affects the output. My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its…
I agree completely. AI model trainers should have to pay the people who provide their training materials, and there should be a default assumption of opting out until someone or their company explicitly opts in.
Unfortunately the Peter thiels and all those bizarrely out of touch silicon valley assholes have already effectively scraped the Internet because ethics don't matter if you're special like them, so to a degree regulations are way behind the ball.
That said it's still worth doing, and I'd love to see it done retroactively as well. It's not as if "I forgot that I had a public Myspace 25 years ago" is an implicit user opt-in for some startup to save your data - however anonymized they claim it is (lol!) - and train its AI on it.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And I sincerely hope they are used against AI to make AI unprofitable. No, they'll make AI unprofitable for small time creators but not massive corporations. The latter either already have rights to vast quantitates of training data or will hire a thousands in Africa to create training data that is just legally different enough to count.
That is why we should halt AI completely and do a more thorough analysis of its societal-level implications before blindingly putting it out there. Because when new technology is introduced, it makes it almost impossible to stop using it due to the way our current society is setup (as a sensitive machine that is very quick to reward any gains in efficieny and economic output as opposed to sustainability).
Simply get every nation on earth to cooperate and ban a vaguely described technology that hundreds of billions of computers can run to varying degrees of efficiency! It's that easy!
If we can't get this level of cooperation for global warming, which is largely the result of a few dozen companies, what makes you think that governments across the world can stop everyone with access to a device with a reasonable amount of compute power? This idea is a non-starter and assumes that there is one single entity that could halt AI altogether. The genie is out of the bottle.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#77Copyright is for humans, not AI. Since the AI is doing 99.999% of the work on an "original work" and since the work is derived from the work of others, copyright should not apply. Copyright is for humans and creations of humans. If we get a truly sapient AI then we can revisit.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#78I believe we first need to answer the question of whether the copyright of the AI model’s source text or images affects the output. My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its…
[deleted]
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#79I’ve made so much money stacking my pitch decks and websites with AI generated media that I don't care if someone copy and pastes it and uses it commercially too People married to their prompt engineering outputs are really missing the forest for the trees
Perhaps it's the artists on whose content your models got trained that are rightfully upset. After all, you're not giving them a dime and neither is "open" "AI"
I think that we shouldn’t burn perhaps the greatest digital art tool ever created in the sake of preserving our currently broken copyright system.
Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments
#80Is there anyone willing to make the case for allowing generated works to have copyright protections?
A lot of people here seem to mistake copyright for "right-to-sell" generated works. As it stands now, with no copyrights granted for AI generated works, anyone can sell any generated works unless some copyright holder believes it violates their copyright.