Good. Maybe this will force the US and other western countries to loosen copyright laws in general. Absolutely no reason to have anything copyrighted for nearly a century or more!
Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training
81–90 of 426 posts
Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if you use it, you’re violating copyright. But you will find no copy of the logo in the model data. The model is way too small to contain its training imagery from an information theoretic point of view.
> But you will find no copy of the logo in the model data. You wont find a copy of a plaintext in a cyphertext. But you can still extract the plaintext from the cyphertext.
That’s an example of a two way lossless transformation. The data is certainly encoded in cypher text and is directly retrievable and has no other purpose than to contain the original data. The model you can’t directly retrieve the original data, and it has more purposes than producing the original. It requires you to specifically manipulate it to produce the copyrighted material, and just because copyrighted material was used to train it doesn’t mean it can even reproduce a facsimile.
I think a better counter example is mpeg and other lossy formats. But again, the format does nothing but carry the original even if it’s not a perfect reproduction. You can’t use it in any other way. Its expressed intent is the reproduction of the copyrighted material with no modification or improvement or derivation. These models are not trained with the intent or purpose of only producing the copyrighted materials. It requires your specific action to induce the reproductions if it’s even possible, but it generally serves other purposes in all other uses.
This is more like a xerox than not - you can certainly violate copyright with a xerox. But the existence of the xerox itself isn’t to violate copyright. It’s for other purposes. The ambiguity obviously comes in that a xerox machine wasn’t built by scanning all documents on earth first. But I think the very act of mixing all the other images and documents together into the model, which again, is just a statistical aggregate of everything that was trained with mushed together, turns it into at worst a derived work that falls under fair use.
Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training
#83I think this should generally be true. The aggregation performed by model training is highly lossy and the model itself is a derived work at worst and is certainly fair use. It may produce stuff that violates copyright, but the way you use or distribute the product of the model that can violate copyright. Making it write code that’s a clone of copyright code or making it make pictures with copy right imagery in it or…
[deleted]
Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no difference between an art student looking through a museum or archives for ideas and an AI using the material for training. Same could be said for reading. A medical student reading through textbooks or a writer who reads is essentially what an AI is doing. You can ask an art student to create something in a certain style. You can get writes to write in a certain style. Equivalent.
Big difference between the art student producing work and getting the credit vs you taking the art student's work and taking the credit for it. The AI is not a human, but what you are doing is the same thing, if you claim the output as your work because you wrote the prompt.
I couldn’t help but notice you didn’t credit any web browser in this comment. And rightfully so. Software doesn’t need or care about being credited.
Well, usually.
Sent from my iPhone.
Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training
#85This is correct. It shouldn’t unless a model is trained only in data for which the trainer owns the copyright.
If I compress someone’s photo with JPEG do I own the photo now?
Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training
#86This is good news. This is basically stating that AI is inventive (which it is, in my humble opinion).
What if you overfit your model to the point of exact reproduction? Or anything in between that and what you consider inventive. Where is the line drawn.
Hey, I think this is a good point.
The genuine question from me is how is this currently handled with humans? How closely can someone emulate a copyrighted work before they start being in danger of violating copyright?
Maybe we apply the same standards and the regulations then come down on the side of output, and those who choose to commercialize it, being liable if they’re too close to reproducing copyrighted works.
Then of course that brings up the fact that the prompter may not be aware, so how could they be liable? Can we really expect everyone using these AIs to be familiar enough with the sum total of the human creative corpus to be able to identify copyright infringements?
Would a lack of intent to emulate Mickey Mouse be a good defense against unknowingly recreating him as your corporate logo? Probably not.
Yeah, it just seems like a giant mess that is only cleanly resolved by either banning training on copyrighted works without consent or else eventually eroding the entire concept of copyright. Are there other options?
Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no difference between an art student looking through a museum or archives for ideas and an AI using the material for training. Same could be said for reading. A medical student reading through textbooks or a writer who reads is essentially what an AI is doing. You can ask an art student to create something in a certain style. You can get writes to write in a certain style. Equivalent.
> There's no difference between an art student looking through a museum or archives for ideas and an AI using the material for training. A few notable differences: 1. Scale: a single art student can't view millions of works in a week. 2. Duplication: a single art student's brain can't be cloned or downloaded into another art student's brain. 3. Speed: a single art student cannot draw or paint thousands of images in a…
If an art student was able to gain those abilities, would you then argue they couldn't legally create art?
Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI models will make 1:1 copies of training data where artists try and avoid doing so. It’s common to obscure this copying by intentionally inserting lossy steps, but making an MP3 isn’t a new work. It’s most obvious when large blocks of text are recreated, but the core mechanism doesn’t go away simply because you obscure the underlying output. “Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models” https://arxiv.org/ab…
> AI models will make 1:1 copies of training data where artists [...] In general I don't think this is the case, assuming you mean generations output from popular text-to-image models. (edit: replied before their comment was edited to include the part on text generation models) For DALL-E 2: I've never seen anyone able to provide a link of supposed copying. Even if you specifically ask it for some prominent work, you…
The more degrees of freedom the less likely independent creation rather than copping occurred.
LLM’s recreating training material causes real issues such as Google’s dealing with PII leaks: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/12/privacy-considerations-in-...
If one prompts the GPT-2 language model with the prefix “East Stroudsburg Stroudsburg...”, it will autocomplete a long block of text that contains the full name, phone number, email address, and physical address of a particular person whose information was included in GPT-2’s training data.
Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training
#89I think this should generally be true. The aggregation performed by model training is highly lossy and the model itself is a derived work at worst and is certainly fair use. It may produce stuff that violates copyright, but the way you use or distribute the product of the model that can violate copyright. Making it write code that’s a clone of copyright code or making it make pictures with copy right imagery in it or…
I strongly agree with this.
There's a distinction between "learning from" and "copying". "Learning from" is a transformative process that distills from the observation. This distillation can be as simple as indexing for a search engine, or as complex as a deep neural network.
Simply because a neural network can create something that is a copyright violation doesn't mean the training process itself it.
A human can see a advertisement for a Marvel movie and then reproduce the Marvel logo. Redistributing (and possibly actually doing that reproduction) that logo is a copyright violation, but the learning process isn't.
The neural network is a tool.
It's reasonable to be concerned about the loss in employment by people who are affected by generative AI. But I think this is a separate issue to the copyright argument.
Re: Japan’s government will not enforce copyrights on data used in AI training
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can anyone monetize Van Gogh regardless? If a human or AI reproduces a Van Gogh painting or derivative, it's not worth anything on the market. Only original pieces, by a human artist, has real value. A Van Gogh painting is worth millions of dollars only because it was created by Van Gogh. A reproduction is approximately worth the paper it's printed on.
Sure they can: https://www.thevangoghstore.com/ https://www.vangoghmuseumshop.com/en/shop https://www.etsy.com/market/van_gogh_merch
The copies are commodities, produced and sold for approximately the cost of production. The original is a one of a kind, unique work that has its value increased by millions of imitations hanging on people's walls.
That's the way I see AI-generated work going in the long run. The artists who have distinctive styles popular for image generation have seen a huge surge in attention, which I suspect will translate into making their original work more valuable.