3 ms·
> But of course humans don't infringe when they watch/listen/read a copyrighted work and it changes their state of mind. You're not generally distributing, per
by naniwaduni 6y ago
> But of course humans don't infringe when they watch/listen/read a copyrighted work and it changes their state of mind.
You're not generally distributing, performing, &c. your state of mind. On the other hand, if you then go and generate work based on what you read, then distributing that work certainly can be infringing. Thus "clean room" techniques, where one team reads copyrighted text, writes up a spec (which may then be checked off by lawyers), and then another team, without reading the copyrighted text, implements based off the spec, are sometimes used to attempt to launder copyright taint.
Taking a step back, the fact that well-known authors have infamously declared that they don't read fanfiction as a CYA move against accusations of plagiarism suggests that yes, brains that have read text are widely considered derivative.
- fakedang 6y agoDistributing an exact copy or paraphrased content of an original work would be subject to copyright, but if a model just generates its own inferences, I don't see how it's different from say a human generated review.
- naniwaduni 6y agoHuman generated reviews are generally considered derivative. That's why fair use &c. doctrines have factors expressly to enable them.
- wyldfire 6y ago> You're not generally distributing, performing, &c. your state of mind. I don't think I agree. My employer values my contribution in some part as an oracle. People at work ask me questions and I answer them. Those answers come from the sum of my experiences (a biochemical 'model'). Other people more directly conduct public performances of their talent. If nothing else this will likely blur the lines on what's considered original work.