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

211–220 of 321 posts

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#211

Post by 8n4vidtmkvmk »

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 see 2 problems with that.

(1) how do you know if the image that just generated is substantially similar to an existing copyright work? Maybe if some registration tool existed, but other wise the burden is too great

(2) what is stopping someone from generating millions of images and copy righting all the "unique" ones? Such that no one can create anything without accidental collisions.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#212

Post by harshreality »

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…

This is more of a problem for images, where similar output to inputs is likely, than for LLMs, where no matter what you prompt it with I doubt you can get it to regurgitate any significant parts of Harry Potter well enough to be a classical copyright violation of any of the novels. Maybe you could generate a copyright violation of character traits.

The output space of images (MB for larger images) tends to be larger than books (a few hundred KB of text for a long novel), but the perceptual output space of books is much larger.

Any determination that licensing is required for AI generation, or use of AI-generated works, is unacceptable until Congress or courts put some reasonable objective tests in place to determine what is and isn't a copyright violation for various types of works of various lengths. Not the ambiguous 4-factor test that is basically whatever the judge feels like. It will be a complete mess otherwise. They can't just define a new AI policy for copyright with a few types of works in mind; it has to work for all works.

You could look at this mathematically from a complexity perspective and try to define a similarity function that's true when a second work is close enough to a first work to be a derived work (assuming the first one had been seen by the creator of the second). Unfortunately that won't work because nobody can define such a function to everyone's satisfaction, and the courts wouldn't accept any informal suggestion of a definition when it didn't come from Congress. Specifically, you'd get into trouble with consistency in the function determining derived works depending on length of the work: short works, like a haiku, are much more sensitive to copyright violation in some ways... a mere 17 syllables is a complete reproduction and therefore a copyright violation, yet a single word isn't; for a novel, reproducing 1/17 of the content is almost certainly a copyright violation, but reproducing 17 syllables probably isn't.

Different stakeholders and creative re-mixers would want different things from the function. It's untenable.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#213

Post by hexage1814 »

cj wrote: post #82
meowkit wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion as a SWE who is dating a lawyer (joke, not a serious qualification but it does provide some insight): Generative models traverse and interpolate high dimensional state spaces. These state spaces are created from input data. I would argue people do the exact same thing - the first main difference is we can use novel inputs (e.g. we can use images or words to develop our music/temporal state spaces and vice…

I can appreciate how this line of thinking might be attractive. But IMO the human machine comparison doesn't lend itself much credence. We shouldn't assume that just because a human is allowed to do something, a machine is automatically allowed to do the same thing, too. I think some care should be taken when considering if we allow machines to have the same privileges as humans.

> We shouldn't assume that just because a human is allowed to do something, a machine is automatically allowed to do the same thing, too

There are no sentient machines (at least yet). Your position is one where you are actually limiting what other humans can do, limiting which tools can other humans have access to. Also, the parameter – according to the law – was always "the same". For instance, there is nothing preventing you from making your own chess league where computers are allowed to compete. FIDE is free to ban you from compete own their leagues or to ban anyone associate with your league or whatever, but there is nothing in the law preventing you.

I have been saying this from the day one: this whole debate it's mainly white-collar workers negatively impacted by automation making up any excuse they can to say why their job should be protected, somehow, for some reason, but not the one of coal miners or what have you.

A human downloads a photo to learn how to draw. Another human downloads a photo to teach their computer how to draw. No difference, no need to obtain any license in any of the cases.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#214

Post by readyplayeremma »

xorbax wrote: post #140
readyplayeremma wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A divergence, but I see a lot of posters asserting that "humans learn by copying other people, but we don't call that a violation of copyright when they draw" 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 phil…

> 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?

Software equivalence to humanity is a very philosophical question that many sci-fi writers have approached. But our primary issue related to this technology does not depend on anyone making a determination there.

The challenge is that losses to livelihood from this technology are going to come from far broader impacts than copyright alone. Copyright disputes are just the first things to get everyone's attention.

Let's say we err on the side of protection of copyright, and all training data must be fully licensed, in addition to users being responsible for ensuring outputs did not accidentally reproduce something similar to a copyrighted work, even if it was part of the licensed training dataset. Great! This fixes the problem of lost value for the owners of copyrights. Companies will face a slight delay and slightly increased costs as they license content; however, in the end, model capabilities will be the same and continue to increase.

The number of jobs that actually cannot be performed without humans will continue to dwindle — livelihoods will be lost at essentially the same scale despite upholding copyrights.

The only way we can handle a technology capable of reducing most need for human labor is by focusing on planning and executing a smooth transition toward an economy with more people than jobs — aiming for minimal human suffering during this process.

A mass loss of human jobs does not need to mean a mass loss of livelihood if our society is prepared to transition to a universal basic income. After all, human life is far more than just a job. We have the opportunity for much more fulfilling lives if we plan this transition well. We must understand that this is a far larger issue than copyright - copyright disputes are just one of the first symptoms of this disruptive process.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#215

Post by mjan22640 »

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…

The human brain is no different. It generates content from the things it learned.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#216

Post by hexage1814 »

raincole wrote: post #112
cj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can appreciate how this line of thinking might be attractive. But IMO the human machine comparison doesn't lend itself much credence. We shouldn't assume that just because a human is allowed to do something, a machine is automatically allowed to do the same thing, too. I think some care should be taken when considering if we allow machines to have the same privileges as humans.

> We shouldn't assume that just because a human is allowed to do something, a machine is automatically allowed to do the same thing, too. Generally speaking, even one machine can do something, it doesn't automatically mean another machine is allowed to do that. For example you can drive car with a normal driving license, but not a truck. In some states you can own a pistol but no automatic rifle.

It also depends on where this happening. For instance, you don't need a license to drive a car inside your own private propriety. You need a license to drive it on public streets because society needs some assurance that you know what you are doing. So in many cases the laws and restrictions also happen in relation to a given scenario.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#217

Post by mjan22640 »

Retric wrote: post #68
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…

Yes, someone using a model can’t know if the generated text/image/sound is a nearly identical copy of the original material they don’t recognize. If use of the output of these systems comes at significant legal risk then then such systems become nearly useless.

The generated content is a derivative work of each piece of the material the model was trained on. That material can be listed.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#218

Post by unstuck3958 »

thenose wrote: post #172
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.

> though it's hard to get noticed.

I'd suggest to start with at least a brief paragraph on what thenose is, what it's goals are etc. I read your post, and found myself reading the technical workings of something I didn't know anything about.

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#219

Post by JamesBarney »

xorbax wrote: post #140
readyplayeremma wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A divergence, but I see a lot of posters asserting that "humans learn by copying other people, but we don't call that a violation of copyright when they draw" 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 phil…

A human is still entering the prompt to generate the possibly copyrighted image/text. I don't think copyright law should care about the implementation. It's ok to copy a style if you use paint brushes or photo shop. But not ok if you use a statistic model?

Re: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Request for comments

#220

Post by cwkoss »

haldujai wrote: post #204
renonce wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, how can you determine if the model contains copyrighted material? The laws governs copyright through ownership, so in order to claim copyright infringement you have to be able pinpoint a specific person and prove that their work is somehow embedded in the gradients, which is not practically possible at the point. It's just like how you can't practically enforce copyright on encrypted data unless you ban e…

1. If you know your copyrighted material was in the training dataset is that not sufficient? 2. From a legal perspective do you actually have to prove it's embedded in the gradients? If I draw an exact copy of Mickey Mouse from memory and sell it I didn't think Disney had to prove I've ever actually seen Mickey Mouse before or point to where the image of him is embedded in my brain.

Disney has a trademark on Mickey mouse, but that does not mean that they automatically get copyright on all pictures of Mickey Mouse drawn by others (they don't)
Post reply on HN