131–140 of 321 posts
I'm surprised that nobody has suggested that what's behind this RFC is Disney and other large studios lobbying to make it legal to copyright AI generated content so that they can move to AI generated movies and art. Right now you can't get a copyright on AI generated content.
I have never understood the fair use argument when it comes to training data. I publish a copyrighted article. Some LLM ingests it without permission, but since the output of that LLM is sufficiently different from my source article there is no violation. I publish copyrighted code. Some company decides to consume it without purchasing a license. The product they distribute is vastly different from my code itself, bu…
Well "consuming" the code means copying it word for word into your source tree. The compilation process does mangle it a bit but usually you can find identical function names and so on, and the courts have ruled that object code is equivalent to source code for purposes of copyright. A different situation is you read a copyrighted news article and write the facts from it in your essay. Since the copyright of the news…
This is fine for actual facts(with some caveats) but how should it apply for creative works like a novel ?
[flagged]
Interesting example. I ran your prompt five times through GPT-3.5. While it didn’t use the name Hogwarts in those cases, three of the results had the character going to either the Academy of Arcane Arts (twice) or the Royal Academy of Arcane Arts, which seems clearly modelled on Hogwarts. I then tried the prompt five times with GPT-4. None of the resulting stories had the main character going to study magic at a scho…
Terms of Use You are prohibited from using the content of this site in "large language models" or any other usage for the purpose of "artificial intelligence". Liquidated Damages
I'll just write a blog with a disclaimer "no one is allowed to read this blog". Now anyone who comes across it is violating my terms and owes me money!
Like Google scanning peoples' email. "We do not read anyone's mail. It's all done by computer."
I 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…
If only some software is disallowed, then why permit Excel but prohibit Stable Diffusion?
Can someone even look at a SD-generated image, and claim with certainty that their own art was used to train it? Any more than claiming that another artist was inspired by it, looking at their output?
I'm fine with anything goes. The alternative seems to be copyright maximalist clownworld.
I have never understood the fair use argument when it comes to training data. I publish a copyrighted article. Some LLM ingests it without permission, but since the output of that LLM is sufficiently different from my source article there is no violation. I publish copyrighted code. Some company decides to consume it without purchasing a license. The product they distribute is vastly different from my code itself, bu…
Isn't the analogy more: an employee at a company reads your copyrighted code, along with many other pieces of code, and produces a new piece of code? Your code influenced the output, but in no way can you a) detect that influence b) assert any copyright over the output.
In your analogy, your code is still "in tact" within the new product; that's not the case with LLM-produced output.
Copyright, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, exists "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"[1]. I can think of no better modern example of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" than AI models themselves. Therefore, it follows that:
1. Existing copyright laws should _not_ be applied in such a way as to make training these models any more difficult than it already is (as that would be in direct opposition to the stated goal)
2. AI models should be copyrightable by the person training the model (for the same reason any other software program is copyrightable)
3. Output of AI models should be copyrightable by the person running the model (for the same reason any other creative work is copyrightable) provided the output does not conflict with any preexisting copyright
For those who think training on copyrighted materials should be illegal, explain to me how that helps "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and I'll re-consider my position.
I would say, treat the AI like a human viewing said data/material, but unlike the majority of humans, most dont have Kim Peek levels of observation and recall, so should there be some sort of expiration of data built into AI's and if so, should it be a blanket cut off date for all data an AI has been exposed to, or allow for some specialisation like a human might have in order to fulfil their occupation? I'm also awa…
Much debate has been had about how existing copyright law applies to AI models. But once you get past that and start asking about how copyright should apply to AI models (as the copyright office is here) the answer in my mind becomes clear. Copyright, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, exists "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"[1]. I can think of no better modern example of "the Progress of Science…
If I know anything I create is just going to be hoovered up and input into somebody's AI model so I do 99% of the work and they get 99% of the profit, perhaps I'm much less likely to progress Science and useful Arts by creating content in the first place.
I fear an internet of signup walls and TOC agreements for everything, just to prevent crawlers that feed AI from soaking it all up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is the best path forward I think. And it will become increasingly sensible as things continue to evolve. AI wasn't necessary to violate copyright before, and it isn't necessary today. The determination of copyright violation should be made against the output of the model in the event that someone uses it for commercial purposes. If the models have a risk of generating copyrighted content, it will be up to the co…
People casually asserting that software is equivalent to humanity will be a non-negligible thing to consider, as irritating and poorly-founded as it seems.
If the reproduction isn't pixel-perfect, but merely obvious and overwhelming, how do you refute that philosophically to people who refuse a distinction between 50GB and a human life?