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

GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 806 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#301

Post by naikrovek »

make3 wrote: post #79
naikrovek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who said they haven't. for something to show up verbatim in the output of a textual AI model it needs to be an input many times. I wonder if the problem is not copilot, but many people using this person's code without license or credit, and copilot being trained on those pieces of code as well. copilot may just be exposing a problem rather than creating one. I don't know much about AI, and I don't use copilot.

there's exactly no way they have

I'm curious how you could possibly know that for sure.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#302

Post by numpad0 »

lbotos wrote: post #249
kevingadd wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not safe for work, but one example I saw going around: https://twitter.com/ebkim00/status/1579485164442648577 Not sure if this was fed the original image as an input or not. Also seen a couple cases where people explicitly trained a network to imitate an artist's work, like the deceased Kim Jung Gi.

It's really interesting. I suspect the face was inpainted in, or this was a "img2img". I think over time we are going to see the following: - If you take say a star wars poster, and inpaint in a trained face over luke's, and sell that to people as a service, you will probably be approached for copyright and trademark infringement. - If you are doing the above with a satirical take, you might be able to claim fair use…

Features outside the face is lost/changed from original on the right, so can’t be face inpainting. Unlikely to be style transfers, because some body parts are moved. Most plausibly this was generated.

So much for “generation” - it seems as if these models are just overfitting on extremely small subset of input data that it did not utterly failed to train on, almost that there could be geniuses who would be able to directly generate weight data from said images without all the gradient descent thing.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#303

Post by bigiain »

rtkwe wrote: post #94
tpxl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded. I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor,…

I think copilot is a clearer copyright violation than any of the stable diffusion projects though because code has a much narrower band of expression than images. It's really easy to look at the output of CoPilot and match it back to the original source and say these are the same. With stable diffusion it's much closer to someone remixing and aping the images than it is reproducing originals. I haven't been following…

> With stable diffusion it's much closer to someone remixing and aping the images than it is reproducing originals.

So very similar to how the music industry treats sampling then?

Everybody using CoPilot needs to get "code sample clearance" from the original copyright holder before publishing their remix or new program that uses snippets of somebody else's code...

Try explaining _that_ to your boss and legal department.

"To: Effective immediately, any use of Github is forbidden without prior written approval from both the CTO and General Councel."

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#304

Post by resonious »

Well, here's a question. Is GitHub violating the LGPL by including the code in their copilot data? Or is it Copilot users who end up using the regurgitated code?

I guess GitHub is violating it the instant their servers send verbatim snippets like this to developers without the copyright notice. And then the Copilot users are also violating it when (if) they release their code that contains verbatim snippets and no notice.

This is a pretty good live experiment on how useful these open source licenses really are. This guy find his license is being violated, so what does he do? If complaining on Twitter seems like the best course of action then maybe we need to rethink the system.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#305

Post by bigiain »

pavlov wrote: post #257
rtkwe wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think copilot is a clearer copyright violation than any of the stable diffusion projects though because code has a much narrower band of expression than images. It's really easy to look at the output of CoPilot and match it back to the original source and say these are the same. With stable diffusion it's much closer to someone remixing and aping the images than it is reproducing originals. I haven't been following…

Stable Diffusion sometimes reproduces the large watermarks used by stock photo providers on their free sample images. That’s embarrassing at the minimum, and potentially a trademark violation.

Surely at the very least it'd be a TOS violation? I doubt any stock photo service grants you enough rights to redistribute their watermarked free image samples? Especially not in the context of a project like Stable Diffusion?

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#306

Post by williamcotton »

snarfy wrote: post #191
williamcotton wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a programmer and a songwriter and I am not worried about these tools and I don’t think they are bad for society. What did the photograph do to the portrait artist? What did the recording do to the live musician? Here’s some highfalutin art theory on the matter, from almost a hundred years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...

> What did the recording do to the live musician? The recording destroyed the occupation of being a live musician. People still do it for what amounts to tip money, but it used to be a real job that people could make a living off of. If you had a business and wanted to differentiate it by having music, you had to pay people to play it live. It was the only way.

It also gave birth to the recording artist. It certainly didn’t get rid of musicians.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#307

Post by williamcotton »

__alexs wrote: post #198
williamcotton wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a programmer and a songwriter and I am not worried about these tools and I don’t think they are bad for society. What did the photograph do to the portrait artist? What did the recording do to the live musician? Here’s some highfalutin art theory on the matter, from almost a hundred years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...

> What did the photograph do to the portrait artist? It completely destroyed the jobs of photo realistic portrait artists. You only have stylised portrait painting now and now that is going to be ripped off too.

It also gave birth to the photographic portrait artist. It certainly did not get rid of portrait artists in general.

This was of course a leading question. The point was to get you to think about what artists did in response to the photograph. They changed the way they paint.

I'm positive that machine learning will also change the way that people create are and I am positive that it will only add to the rich tapestry of creative possibilities. There are still realistic portrait painters, after all, they're just not as numerous.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#309

Post by CapsAdmin »

dataflow wrote: post #272
AmericanChopper wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes it not simple like FizzBuzz? You will not be able to come up with a reason why this one single function is copyrightable, but a FizzBuzz function isn’t. It’s one function in 15 lines of code. Get 1,000,000 developers to implement that function and you’re not going to have anywhere near 1,000,000 substantially different implementations.

For one thing FizzBuzz is like... 5-6 statements? This function has 13. FizzBuzz has a whopping 1 variable to keep track of. This function has so many I'm not even going to try to count. I'm not going to keep arguing about this, but if you want to believe they're equally simple then you'll just have a hard time convincing other people. That's all I have left to say on this.

It doesn't seem that far off to me. Copyright makes more sense in a larger context, such as making a Windows clone by copy pasting code from some Windows leak.

Without that context, fizzbuzz is not that different from a matrix transpose function to me.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#310

Post by teaearlgraycold »

chlorion wrote: post #292
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how you’d get caught if your code is kept private.

If you are releasing binaries that are publicly accessible it is possible to get caught. Statically linked binaries for example have parts of libraries embedded into them. There exists tools that can analyze the binary and try to detect signatures from a shared library in the binary. In the past there were (and probably still are) companies who provided services to help with finding people who have linked in your cod…

Yeah but it's not going to be a part of a library. It'll be a few lines of code from a library.
Post reply on HN