3 ms·

Sure. https://jtip.law.northwestern.edu/2021/05/28/copyright-issues-for-ai-and-deep-learning-services-a-comparison-of-u-s-south-korean-and-japanese-law/ https:

by causi 4y ago

Sure. https://jtip.law.northwestern.edu/2021/05/28/copyright-issues-for-ai-and-deep-learning-services-a-comparison-of-u-s-south-korean-and-japanese-law/ https://jtip.law.northwestern.edu/2021/05/28/copyright-issue... However, even if infringement occurs during machine learning, training AI with copyrighted works would likely be excused by the ‘fair use’ doctrine.[ii] For example, in Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.[iii], Google had scanned digital copies of books and established a publicly available search function. The plaintiffs alleged that this constituted infringement of copyrights. The Second Circuit held that Google’s works were non-infringing fair uses because the purpose of the copying was highly transformative, the public display of text was limited, and the revelations did not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals.

monocasa 4y ago
That's training for search to lead to a full copy of the original work with citations, not training for regurgitating verbatim chunks of copywritten works to be incorporated at scale into other copyrighted works while obfuscating their original source. The Second Circuit's tests listed in your citation specifically fail in this case. It's not highly transformative since it's just regurgitating snippets to be used in other competing works rather than applying the body of works to a different domain. And it's specifically to provide a market substitute for the protected aspects of the original works. Additionally, none of this says 'its all great and it's on the user to figure it out'.
- causi 4y ago
  In the US copyright violation is a strict liability statute. Regardless of whether or not a court directly confirms or denies Microsoft's right to use code in that way, the end developer is still liable for whatever he or she uses.
  - monocasa 4y ago
    But that's orthogonal to being able to use whatever you want as training data for an AI.
    - causi 4y ago
      Has the exact issue of a remixing AI been tested in court? No. But everything even remotely similar has been deemed legal. Considering the legal and financial backing on both sides of the issue I expect it to go Microsoft's way even if it does end up before a judge.
      - monocasa 4y ago
        It clearly fails the > the revelations did not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. test of your cited case law though. The courts clearly drew a line at developing AI to inject snippets of copy-written works in similar copy-written works. And in context it would be the developer of the AI at fault (in addition to the end users who also used it to infringe other works in the creation of partially derived works; multiple parties can be at fault). Basically the courts are making it pretty clear that they would have been against what Google had made if it were suggesting phrases in a plugin for a word processing program to create books that would compete with the original books. But being a separate domain of simply collating existing books and providing better search for their corpus (which led you to the original) was allowed.

by causi 4y ago

monocasa 4y ago

That's training for search to lead to a full copy of the original work with citations, not training for regurgitating verbatim chunks of copywritten works to be incorporated at scale into other copyrighted works while obfuscating their original source. The Second Circuit's tests listed in your citation specifically fail in this case. It's not highly transformative since it's just regurgitating snippets to be used in other competing works rather than applying the body of works to a different domain. And it's specifically to provide a market substitute for the protected aspects of the original works. Additionally, none of this says 'its all great and it's on the user to figure it out'.

causi 4y ago
In the US copyright violation is a strict liability statute. Regardless of whether or not a court directly confirms or denies Microsoft's right to use code in that way, the end developer is still liable for whatever he or she uses.
- monocasa 4y ago
  But that's orthogonal to being able to use whatever you want as training data for an AI.
  - causi 4y ago
    Has the exact issue of a remixing AI been tested in court? No. But everything even remotely similar has been deemed legal. Considering the legal and financial backing on both sides of the issue I expect it to go Microsoft's way even if it does end up before a judge.
    - monocasa 4y ago
      It clearly fails the > the revelations did not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. test of your cited case law though. The courts clearly drew a line at developing AI to inject snippets of copy-written works in similar copy-written works. And in context it would be the developer of the AI at fault (in addition to the end users who also used it to infringe other works in the creation of partially derived works; multiple parties can be at fault). Basically the courts are making it pretty clear that they would have been against what Google had made if it were suggesting phrases in a plugin for a word processing program to create books that would compete with the original books. But being a separate domain of simply collating existing books and providing better search for their corpus (which led you to the original) was allowed.