GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by cypress66 » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 2:01 AM UTC

acoustics wrote: post #6

I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI. For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged b…

I'm actually fine with both. I think copyright/IP related to software needs to be toned down a lot. Software patents abolished.

In my opinion the only thing that should be an infringement regarding code is copying entire non trivial files or entire projects outright.

A 100 line snippet should not be copyrighteable. Only the entire work, which you could think as the composition of many of those snippets.

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

#362

Post by nl » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 2:02 AM UTC

rovr138 wrote: post #344

Filligree wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not reproducing their samples. It's just adding their watermark to newly generated pictures you can't find in the training set.

If the watermark is their logo or name, it could copyrighted or trademarked.

And it's the responsibility of the person using the tool to generate that image not to violate copyright by redistributing it.

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

#363

Post by _ryanjsalva » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 2:02 AM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #354

_ryanjsalva wrote: post #313

Howdy, folks. Ryan here from the GitHub Copilot product team. I don’t know how the original poster’s machine was set-up, but I’m gonna throw out a few theories about what could be happening. If similar code is open in your VS Code project, Copilot can draw context from those adjacent files. This can make it appear that the public model was trained on your private code, when in fact the context is drawn from local fil…

Thank you for the response ( especially since it does not read like a corporate damage control response ). I will admit that I am conflicted, because I can see some really cool potential applications of Copilot, but I can't say I am not concerned if what Tim maintains is accurate for several different reasons. Lets say Copilot becomes the way of the future. Does it mean we will be able to trust the code more or less?…

I firmly believe that GitHub Copilot isn't a replacement for thinking, breathing, reasoning developers on the other side of the keyboard. Nor is it a replacement for best practices that ensure proper code quality like linting, code reviews, testing, security audits, etc.

All the research suggests that AI-assisted auto-complete merely helps developers go faster with more focus/flow. For example, there's an NYU study that compared security vulnerabilities produced by developers with and without AI-assistend auto-complete. The study found that developers produced the same number of potential vulnerabilities whether they used AI auto-complete or not. In other words, the judgement of the developer was the stronger indicator of code quality.

The bottom line is that your expertise matters. Copilot just frees you up to focus on the more creative work rather than fussing over syntax, boilerplate, etc.

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

#364

Post by mattkrause » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 2:02 AM UTC

Filligree wrote: post #329

matkoniecz wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.... Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earring, by Johannes Vermeer” by Stable Diffusion Right: Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer This specific one is not copyright violation as it is old enough for copyright to expire. But the same may happen with other images. from https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ and https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-…

If a human drew that, it would not be copyright violation.

I’m not so sure about that.

The scenes à faire doctrine would certainly let you paint your own picture of a pretty girl with a large earring, even a pearl one. That, however, is definitely the same person, in the same pose/composition, in the same outfit. The colors are slightly off, but the difference feels like a technical error rather than an expressive choice.

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

#365

Post by dataflow » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 2:04 AM UTC

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #360

dataflow wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

SCO v. IBM[1] included claims of sections as small as "…ranging from five to ten to fifteen lines of code in multiple places that are of issue…" in some of the individual claims of the case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group,_Inc._v._Internation... .

The "..." part you redacted out explicitly said "it is many different sections of code". It was (quite obviously) not one or two 5-line blocks of code, let alone "simple" ones like FizzBuzz.

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

#366

Post by BeFlatXIII » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 2:04 AM UTC

ghoward wrote: post #27

acoustics wrote: post #6

I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI. For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged b…

I am a programmer who has written extensively on my blog and HN against Copilot. I am also not a hypocrite; I do not like DALL-E or Stable Diffusion either. As a sibling comment implies, these AI tools give more power to people who control data, i.e., big companies or wealthy people, while at the same time, they take power away from individuals. Copilot is bad for society. DALL-E and Stable Diffusion are bad for soci…

Thankfully, Stable Diffusion is on thousands of hard drives, so the genie can't be put back in the bottle.

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

#367

Post by nl » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 2:04 AM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #239

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…

I don’t know of any examples of images being wholly recreated, but it’s certainly possible to use the name of some living artists to get work in their style. In those cases, it seems like not such a leap to say that the AI has obviously seen that artist’s work and that the output is a derivative work. (The obvious counterargument is that this is the same as a human looking at an artist’s work and aping the style.)

> n those cases, it seems like not such a leap to say that the AI has obviously seen that artist’s work and that the output is a derivative work.

"Copying" a style is not a derivative work:

> Why isn't style protected by copyright? Well for one thing, there's some case law telling us it isn't. In Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures, the court stated that style is merely one ingredient of expression and for there to be infringement, there has to be substantial similarity between the original work and the new, purportedly infringing, work. In Dave Grossman Designs v. Bortin, the court said that:

> "The law of copyright is clear that only specific expressions of an idea may be copyrighted, that other parties may copy that idea, but that other parties may not copy that specific expression of the idea or portions thereof. For example, Picasso may be entitled to a copyright on his portrait of three women painted in his Cubist motif. Any artist, however, may paint a picture of any subject in the Cubist motif, including a portrait of three women, and not violate Picasso's copyright so long as the second artist does not substantially copy Picasso's specific expression of his idea."

https://www.thelegalartist.com/blog/you-cant-copyright-style

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

#368

Post by kmeisthax » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 2:06 AM UTC

insanitybit wrote: post #50

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,…

> Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube That can't possibly be a valid claim, right? AFAIK copyright is "gone" after the original author dies + ~70 years. Before fairly recently it was even shorter. Something from 1640 surely can't be claimed under copyright protection. There are much more recent changes where that might not be the case, but 1640? > When Jane Rando uses dev…

>That can't possibly be a valid claim, right?

For literally everything but music, yes.

Even by the standards of copyright technicality, music copyright is weird. For example, if you ask a lawyer[0] what parts of copyright set it apart from other forms of property law[1], they would probably answer that it's federally preempted[2] and that it has constitutionally-mandated term limits.

Which, of course, is why music has a second "recording copyright", which was originally created by states assigning perpetual copyright to sound recordings. I wish I was making this up.

So the musical arrangement that constitutes that song from 1640? Absolutely public domain. You can tell people how to play Monteverdi all damned day. But every time you record that song being played, that creates a new copyright on that recording only. This is analogous to how making a cartoon of a public-domain fairy tale gives you ownership over that cartoon only. Except because different performers are all trying to play the same music as perfectly as possible, the recordings will sound the same and trip a Content ID match.

Oh, and because music copyright has two souls, the Sixth Circuit said there's no de minimus for sampling. That's why sample-happy rap is dead.

If you want public domain music on your YouTube video you either record it yourself or license a recording someone else did. I think there are CC recordings of PD music but I'm not sure. Either way you'll also need to repeatedly prove this to YouTube staff that would much rather not have to defend you against a music industry that's been out for blood for half a century at this point.

[0] Who, BTW, I am very much NOT

[1] Yes, yes, I know I'm dangerously close to uttering the dangerous propaganda term "intellectual property". You can go back to bed Mr. Stallman.

[2] Which means states can't make their own supra-federal copyright law and any copyright suit immediately goes to federal court.

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

#369

Post by BeFlatXIII » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 2:07 AM UTC

naillo wrote: post #25

ChildOfChaos wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think sadly it's just people being protective, the technology is interesting so if it doesn't hit their line of work, it's fantastic, if it does, then it's terrible. There is no arguing against it though, you can't stop it, all this stuff is coming eventually to all of these areas, might as well try and find ways to use the oppurutinies while you can while some of this is still new.

I mean we definitely can stop it. Laws are a pretty strong deterrent.

Laws in which nation and enforced by which juries?

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

#370

Post by didibus » Mon, Oct 17, 2022, 2:09 AM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #275

mr_toad wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I haven't been following super closely but I don't know of any claims or examples where input images were recreated to a significant degree by stable diffusion. I think that the argument being made by some artists is that the training process itself violates copyright just by using the training data. That’s quite different from arguing that the output violates copyright, which is what the tweet in this case was abo…

I'm dubious of that in cases where the training set isn't distributed. If we call the training copyright infringement is downloading an image infringement? is caching?

I think it's more a question of derivative work. Normally derivative work is an infringement unless it falls under fair use.

Now a human can take inspiration from like 100 different sources and probably end up with something that no one would recognize as derivative to any of them. But it also wouldn't be obvious that the human did that.

But with an ML model, it's clearly a derivative in that the learned function is mathematically derived from its dataset and so is all the resulting outputs.

I think this brings a new question though. Because till now derivative was kind of implied that the output was recognizable as being derived.

With AI, you can tweak it so the output doesn't end up being easily recognizable as derived, but we know it's still derived.

Personally I think what really matters is more a question of what should be the legal framework around it. How do we balance the interests of AI companies and that of developers, artists, citizens who are the authors of the dataset that enabled the AI to exist. And what right should each party be given?