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

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

federalregister.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 321 posts

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#171

Post by dumpsterdiver »

kuchenbecker wrote: post #73
Nevermark wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm so torn. On one hand, what you suggest seems to be a nearly ideal balance between advancing scientific progress and legal liability. By placing the legal burden to publish generated works on the person actually trying to publish, it allows for a more nuanced legal approach (i.e. the difference between "there are similarities to this work, but it's murky" or "you %100 stole that work").

On the other hand, is the company running the model themselves not already publishing all of that work and profiting from it? It seems unfair that their bottom line gets to be bolstered because they can produce work based on any artist, whereas the consumers of that work may need to end up walking on egg shells in order to publish them.

Like I said, I'm torn as far as how it "should be". I know how I want it to be though. I would love if AI continued training unabated. The results have been amazing, and I believe it would be a shame if the effort was slowed down by legislation.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#172

Post by thenose »

40yearoldman wrote: post #142

The only clear solution is to abandon the notion of a copyright. We have know for a long time that everything can be represented with numbers, even more so within the space of computers. All we have done is invent a system to help us find numbers we find special.

Trying, though it's hard to get noticed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37346620 And I want to participate in the community here, not merely mention the thing I've built.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#173

Post by klabb3 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #137

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…

> 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.

This makes no sense. Before AI, it’s clear that copyright itself restricts what can be done, in order to promote overall health of innovation. You can’t just say this is cool so therefore allowed, then there would never have been any copyright in the first place. You have to argue that the overall result will be better given the rules you propose.

Now, I’m no fan of copyright, but it is abundantly clear that the tech companies are able to capitalize on new tech disproportionately. Thus, it’s a transfer of privilege from the very many designers, artists, musicians, authors etc to whomever will dominate AI. That’s not good, simply because of the centralization.

Moreover, you can’t just look at the short term gains of AI models that can be produced with existing content. You need to include the change in incentives, when creators financial prospects are even more minuscule than today. Even if AI is all that matters, they still need training data, and that needs to come from somewhere.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#174

Post by freejazz »

paxys wrote: post #85
rickmode wrote: post #14

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…

> is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material But then you are just shifting the problem forward by an inch. What happens when tomorrow someone declares that their model is generally intelligent and is therefore allowed to disregard copyright when training just like a person can?

Is it your experience that people's facial declarations cary the day in legal disputes? It's not mine. Rather, it seems like the whole thing is designed to provide scrutiny against bare facial declarations that something is true or false.

I see this on HN all the time "someone just has to claim" "someone just has to say". Yeah... that's not how it works. People can say whatever they want, that doesn't mean it satisfied their burden of proof. Self serving testimony is the lowest form of evidence imaginable.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#175

Post by skydhash »

tomrod wrote: post #145
fluidcruft wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally have a really hard time finding any meaningful difference or distinction between "AI" and "lossy compression". Copyright and "lossy compression" are pretty easy to reason about. Model "building" is "compression". Model "use" is "decompression". Everything about these AI models seems to be about the "lossy" part, but "lossy" is just an adjective to the main show. It's very difficult to not conclude that c…

Some compression, yes, but the analogy oversimplifies. AI rerepresents input information in a transformative way (embedding, say) then creates new, derived and combined output from a new input (e.g prompt). It's not just lossy compression. It's potentially novel.

It’s compression + filtering. Nothing generative. Its output is like 99.99 % deterministic.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#176

Post by fluidcruft »

freejazz wrote: post #170
fluidcruft wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you concatenate images into a stream container (say as tar) and then compress the stream, the compression coding will (generally) cross over the individual images. True, that's generally not lossy compression. But concatenating images is also how you create video. Lossy video compression does typically cross over frames. So I don't actually see a difference. If you want to think about mkv or mp4 instead of zip it'…

What does any of this have to do with creating a new expression?

What makes anything new? Is anything created by "AI" actually new? How much entropy is in a prompt vs in the output?

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#177

Post by thayne »

Yodel0914 wrote: post #136
paxys wrote: post #106

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…

> 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, but I can still sue them into oblivion. 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 t…

If the new code is almost identical to the original code, then it is very much subject to copyright, or at the very least is grounds for a lawsuit. And generetive AIs can and do generate output extremely similar to some of its inputs if given the right prompt.

My personal opinion is that training a model isn't infringing the copyright. But generating outputs can, if they are sufficiently similar. And since the model itself can't be liable for such infringing works, I think the creator of the model should be responsible.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#178

Post by freejazz »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #90
lstodd wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Object code is a derivative work I think. So no. Compilers do not count.

The US had to update copyright law to explicitly protect binaries

That just means some judges got it wrong and congress really wanted to make sure others didn't. I'm not sure what proposition that stands for here, except that sometimes new things are hard to get right at first.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#179

Post by stale2002 »

LegitShady wrote: post #55
stale2002 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lesson you should learn is that if you fill portions of a work using something that starts authoring parts of the image, you should lose the ability to copyright those parts of the image, because you didn't author them. In your opinion then, using this same line of logic, Photoshop is not protected. The courts disagree with you though. Using your line of logic, you could say that the computer is authoring the w…

I used words very carefully. It depends on the level of human authorship. If you use a tool to correct some pixels thats directed by a human closely, no thats not a problem. If you remove large parts of the image with the ai erase fill, then you've given up authorship of those parts of the image. You could then go in and author changes to the work that you could further add to your copyright. But you would never chan…

> I used words very carefully.

Then I am happy to use your word if that clarifies things.

Just replace everything that I said about "human input" with "human authorship".

And my point is that there are many things that a human can do using AI art that have large amounts of "human authorship" beyond just the boring case of prompting midjourney with a dumb prompt.

> It depends on the level of human authorship.

Oh hey! Yes that is exactly my point.

That point being that just like Photoshop images are copyrightable, because there is human authorship, so can AI art, if there is human authorship.

Glad you agree.

> thats directed by a human closely

Ok! You agree with me then! That's my point!

My point is that AI art can be directed by a human closely and that there is so much more than can be done than a simple prompt into mid journey.

You agree with my central point.

> If you remove large parts of the image with the ai erase fill, then you've given up authorship

Not if you "direct it closely"! Then it's protected.

> how much authorship is the human having

That's is exactly what I am talking about though, that I have said multiple times.

That there are lots of things that a human can do, related to AI art that are directed closely, and that these things are authorship.

But I am glad that you agree with me that if it is directed closely then it is protected, which was my point and that you can do this with AI.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#180

Post by Ajedi32 »

showerst wrote: post #139
Ajedi32 wrote: post #137

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…

So i'm not sure how I feel, but to play Devil's advocate -- 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…

> 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

Could you give a more concrete example of how this could happen?

As-is, I don't see how the existence of an AI model trained on J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is going to result in Tolkien's works receiving 99% less profit.

Maybe you could argue AI models as a whole will devalue certain types of creative works (e.g. art commissions for designing logos), but they don't need to train on any one particular creative work to accomplish that, so unless you're saying we should just ban AI models entirely I'm not sure how copyright helps with that.

> I fear an internet of signup walls and TOC agreements for everything, just to prevent crawlers that feed AI from soaking it all up.

This is a fair point, particularly since it appears to be already happening to some extent. Though it seems to be largely social media companies and content aggregators trying to control access to information they don't hold the copyright to in the first place, not individual users trying to restrict access to works that they created. I'm not sure copyright would really help "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" there so much as "promote the wallets of large social media conglomerates".

Post reply on HN