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

US Copyright Office: Generative AI Training [pdf]

copyright.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: US Copyright Office: Generative AI Training [pdf]

#11

Post by MoonGhost »

dave1629 wrote: post #2

From the Conclusion: "In applying current law, we conclude that several stages in the development of generative AI involve using copyrighted works in ways that implicate the owners’ exclusive rights. The key question, as most commenters agreed, is whether those acts of prima facie infringement can be excused as fair use. ... But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content t…

Did they manage to come up with recommendations? Other than to stop it all. In this case we have DeepSeek R1. China will be happy as Trump will have to force NVidia to send best chips there.

Re: US Copyright Office: Generative AI Training [pdf]

#12

Post by kelseyfrog »

Footnote one is where the whole thing goes off the rails. The Copyright Office asserts that the works in question are not merely "data" in the ordinary sense, but somehow "embody creative expression" in a way that constitutes protected authorship.

This is metaphysics, not law or computer science.

They're smuggling in a kind of authorial transubstantiation, as if creative essence somehow imbues the bits themselves, rendering them qualitatively different from any other arrangement of bytes. The implication is that once a work has passed through the sacrament of human intention, it permanently carries a kind of spiritual copyright residue, regardless of its subsequent transformation or use.

But that's not how data works. A copy of a copyrighted work in a training corpus is still just data. It doesn't emit rights. It's not radioactive. There's no Platonic form of "authorship" that permeates the latent space. What matters, legally, and practically, is what the system does with that data, not some mystical essence the data supposedly contains.

This is authorial essentialism dressed up as policy. And it doesn’t hold up under inspection.

Re: US Copyright Office: Generative AI Training [pdf]

#13

Post by aredox »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #12

Footnote one is where the whole thing goes off the rails. The Copyright Office asserts that the works in question are not merely "data" in the ordinary sense, but somehow "embody creative expression" in a way that constitutes protected authorship. This is metaphysics, not law or computer science. They're smuggling in a kind of authorial transubstantiation, as if creative essence somehow imbues the bits themselves, re…

Yeah, and painting is just oil, and music is just an arrangement of noises. And only the original manuscript touched by an author is protected by rights, and every book printed ("copied") afterwards is not covered by any rights.

Re: US Copyright Office: Generative AI Training [pdf]

#14

Post by yieldcrv »

jawon wrote: post #10
yieldcrv wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many issues with that, the copyright office doesn’t police access, which involves consuming, the copyright office polices distributing. So then for them to determine fair use, they need the department of justice involved to say the access was illegal? since when. just to highlight the absurdity. “Illegal” meaning a terms of service violation despite the fact that everyone using the service can consume copyrighted…

This is a standard book copyright notice: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except as permitted by U.S. copyright law. “Reproduced” and “electronic” are the relevant terms here. I remember when gp…

> except as permitted by U.S. copyright law.

these are the relevant terms to me, that notice isn’t law at all, where the exceptions make the rule.

Re: US Copyright Office: Generative AI Training [pdf]

#16

Post by aspenmayer »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #12

Footnote one is where the whole thing goes off the rails. The Copyright Office asserts that the works in question are not merely "data" in the ordinary sense, but somehow "embody creative expression" in a way that constitutes protected authorship. This is metaphysics, not law or computer science. They're smuggling in a kind of authorial transubstantiation, as if creative essence somehow imbues the bits themselves, re…

What Color are your bits?

https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Re: US Copyright Office: Generative AI Training [pdf]

#17

Post by aspenmayer »

adt wrote: post #5

Part 1 (replicas) https://copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligen... Part 2 (copyrightability) https://copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligen... Part 3 (GenAI training) https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell... Analysis in previous and upcoming editions of The Memo: https://lifearchitect.ai/memo/

> Analysis in previous and upcoming editions of The Memo: https://lifearchitect.ai/memo/

I couldn't actually find any articles about this news on your substack. The newest post I saw was from last month. Could you link where you discuss OP?

Re: US Copyright Office: Generative AI Training [pdf]

#18

Post by Greed »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #12

Footnote one is where the whole thing goes off the rails. The Copyright Office asserts that the works in question are not merely "data" in the ordinary sense, but somehow "embody creative expression" in a way that constitutes protected authorship. This is metaphysics, not law or computer science. They're smuggling in a kind of authorial transubstantiation, as if creative essence somehow imbues the bits themselves, re…

You speak of intentionality beyond the explicit reality of the data involved as some great irrationality in their statement, but we literally have a corresponding term for that. Spirit of the law. If the law were as black and white and ends-oriented as you're implying it is, we wouldn't need judges for the interpretation of it. The fact that they have prioritized the underlying authors affected over the traditional interpretation of the law here is not the condemnation you think it is.

Re: US Copyright Office: Generative AI Training [pdf]

#20

Post by kelseyfrog »

Greed wrote: post #18
kelseyfrog wrote: post #12

Footnote one is where the whole thing goes off the rails. The Copyright Office asserts that the works in question are not merely "data" in the ordinary sense, but somehow "embody creative expression" in a way that constitutes protected authorship. This is metaphysics, not law or computer science. They're smuggling in a kind of authorial transubstantiation, as if creative essence somehow imbues the bits themselves, re…

You speak of intentionality beyond the explicit reality of the data involved as some great irrationality in their statement, but we literally have a corresponding term for that. Spirit of the law. If the law were as black and white and ends-oriented as you're implying it is, we wouldn't need judges for the interpretation of it. The fact that they have prioritized the underlying authors affected over the traditional i…

I think you're missing the deeper point. Whether or not the Copyright Office intends to assert authorial essentialism, it's doing so in effect. And when metaphysical language about "creative essence" becomes encoded in policy and enforced by courts, it's not just metaphor. It's law.

Calling it "spirit of the law" doesn't let them off the hook. If you enshrine a metaphysics that treats human-authored works as ontologically distinct kinds of data, imbued with some persistent essence that radiates rights regardless of use, you're not interpreting the law, you're institutionalizing a theology of authorship.

And yes, I care less about their intentions than about the system they're building. That system is now enforcing metaphysical categories with legal teeth. That's the problem.

Post reply on HN