Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
thebookseller.com
Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
#2IANAL, but this seems kind of pointless? Either AI training is copyright infringement or it's not. A tiny disclaimer isn't going to affect that. The AI companies contend that it's fair use, which would probably override any fine print on the inside cover.
Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
#3> There is no standard ‘All rights reserved’ wording and even the most basic notice covers all uses. Having said that, we’re pleased to see publishers starting to add to the ‘All rights reserved’ notice to explicitly exclude the use of a work for the purpose of training [generative AI], as it provides greater clarity and helps to explain to readers what cannot be done without rights-holder consent.”
So their position is that all rights reserved always meant that unauthorized use of any kind was already forbidden, but that was ignored / unenforceable and so they are adding “looking at you” language to carve out stuff that’s disallowed more specifically. Feels like bargaining, because this just gives the opposition the chance to argue that it wasn’t illegal before.
Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
#4IANAL, but this seems kind of pointless? Either AI training is copyright infringement or it's not. A tiny disclaimer isn't going to affect that. The AI companies contend that it's fair use, which would probably override any fine print on the inside cover.
> The AI companies contend that it's fair use
Do they? "Fair Use" is an affirmative defense, so the only time we're going to get into that is in a court case, where it'll be tested through legal means.
I would say it's even more nuanced: if LLM training involves merely reading a dataset, but it is not strictly necessary to copy, or even store it verbatim to be useful, then does it even fall under copyright protection at all? A lot of computer-based data processing is already immune to copyright issues; you can place a webpage into a server-based cache or CDN, you can stream it across a network, you can cache it in RAM or local storage, you can make backups of things, and all these processing uses don't fall afoul of copyright.
So I would say that we're going to watch the LLM trainers say that the models aren't storing copies at all, and that seems an even stronger defense than "Fair Use". It is a strange copyright protection indeed that explicitly or implicitly prohibits certain types of machine readings, while allowing many others.
Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
#5If it's fair use in the US, it doesn't matter how many "X is prohibited because of copyright" clauses they add, AI training is allowed.
For EU TDM, this opt out probably works to disallow commercial entities from using it for training, but not researchers.
For SG TDM, this opt out can be ignored. All legally-acquired material can be used for AI training purposes, period.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
#6> There is no standard ‘All rights reserved’ wording and even the most basic notice covers all uses. Having said that, we’re pleased to see publishers starting to add to the ‘All rights reserved’ notice to explicitly exclude the use of a work for the purpose of training [generative AI], as it provides greater clarity and helps to explain to readers what cannot be done without rights-holder consent.” So their position…
> unauthorized use of any kind was already forbidden
Is a funny sentence to have to say. Is unauthorized use also unauthorized?
Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
#7Which country has the most favorable 'fair use' laws, and why wouldn't big companies train their models there?
Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
#8IANAL, but this seems kind of pointless? Either AI training is copyright infringement or it's not. A tiny disclaimer isn't going to affect that. The AI companies contend that it's fair use, which would probably override any fine print on the inside cover.
> AI companies contend that it's fair use
It's a good thing they don't train on copyrighted material from jurisdictions that have something other than "fair use", such as Australia's "fair dealing". Otherwise, they'd have to argue that their use of such copyrighted material doesn't "usurp either the market of the original work or a derivative market".
https://addisons.com/knowledge/insights/fair-use-or-fair-dea...
Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
#9IANAL, but this seems kind of pointless? Either AI training is copyright infringement or it's not. A tiny disclaimer isn't going to affect that. The AI companies contend that it's fair use, which would probably override any fine print on the inside cover.
> The AI companies contend that it's fair use Do they? "Fair Use" is an affirmative defense, so the only time we're going to get into that is in a court case, where it'll be tested through legal means. I would say it's even more nuanced: if LLM training involves merely reading a dataset, but it is not strictly necessary to copy , or even store it verbatim to be useful, then does it even fall under copyright protectio…
It is a fair point. Companies contend what they always contend, which is their position in an argument; they do so forcefully and regardless of the reality on the ground. Companies are basically modeled after opportunists.
Re: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
#10> There is no standard ‘All rights reserved’ wording and even the most basic notice covers all uses. Having said that, we’re pleased to see publishers starting to add to the ‘All rights reserved’ notice to explicitly exclude the use of a work for the purpose of training [generative AI], as it provides greater clarity and helps to explain to readers what cannot be done without rights-holder consent.” So their position…
> unauthorized use of any kind was already forbidden Is a funny sentence to have to say. Is unauthorized use also unauthorized?
Authorization and forbidding are both explicit actions.
Unauthorized refers to the absence of authorisation.
‘Unauthorized use is forbidden’ means ‘all use must have explicit permission.’
Clearly it is a bit disingenuous as it usually means ‘all use I don’t like / is not inline with norms’.