6 ms·
The training set is almost certainly composed of copyrighted material.
by daturkel 10y ago
The training set is almost certainly composed of copyrighted material.
- Asooka 10y agoInteresting thought - doesn't every single porn producer now have a valid copyright claim on the trained network? I don't see how you can argue this isn't a derivative work based on the movies they produced.
- x1798DE 10y agoI don't think it's a derivative work just because one of the inputs is copyrighted. I think it's more descriptive than derivative. Content producers don't generally own copyright in critics' descriptions of their movies or of plot summaries, even though their copyrighted material is a necessary input to the description's creation.
- onli 10y agoAlso, good luck trying to prove that your film was used to train this network.
- RandomBK 10y agoYou could be compelled to produce your training set during the discovery phase of a lawsuit.
- eyeJam 10y agoOnly if there was any reasonable basis to believe that infringement had taken place. Most countries have some sort of pre-trial hearing before a civil suit to determine if there's merit to the accusation. You're generally not allowed to go on fishing expeditions without a reasonable basis for your claim(s).
- rahkiin 10y agoExcept the 'derivative' has nothing in common with the original.
- cowsandmilk 10y agoI don't think you could argue this is a derivative work and not be sanctioned by the courts for bringing frivolous litigation.
- derefr 10y agoI was debating with a friend about just this: whether a text-to-speech model is a derivative work of audio recordings by a given speaker, such that they'd then have claim on ownership of it. (You could almost certainly create an [overfit] model that could re-generate the original performance of a text from said text.) Moot if it was a work-for-hire, of course; but if I, say, created a Samuel L. Jackson speech model by training on samples from his movies, and sold it as one of those car-navigation voices, could I be sued? By Mr. Jackson? By the copyright-holders of the movies? And if I could, what does that imply about impersonators, who do the same thing, but with their brains?
- Joof 10y agoI imagine you couldn't put his name on it which would be a huge deal if you wanted to sell it.
- mozumder 10y agoIt would fall under "transformative" fair use.
- cortesoft 10y agoIt would not be considered derivative work, because what is produced is nothing like the original. There is nothing recognizable in the work produced for a court to rule on. This is like saying the hash of the text of a book is derivative. If it were ruled that this is the case (that a hash is a derivative work) then suddenly every single number in existence is a derivative of every single other number (since there will always exist some function that will transform X into Y.)