4 ms·

> Again, where in the neural weights does your original work live? That's not the standard for copyright infringement. The standard is (1) access to the origin

> Again, where in the neural weights does your original work live? That's not the standard for copyright infringement. The standard is (1) access to the original work and (2) producing a work that is "substantial similar" to the original. If the user of an AI produces an output that is substantially similar to one of the AI's training images, then it could potentially infringe. That's the law. In an actual case, a judge or jury would look at the original and decide if the alleged infringer is "substantially similar" enough. That's a crap shoot, so cases usually settle before that.

JimDabell 4y ago
> producing a work that is "substantial similar" to the original. So the question “where in the model is your original?” is a reasonable and relevant question to ask. If this person can induce the model to produce a work that is reasonably considered a copy of their original, then fair enough. All they have to do is give a prompt and a seed and they can prove copyright infringement very easily because anybody else with similar hardware and software can demonstrate the infringement on demand. If I understand correctly, this has happened with GitHub Copilot, with Copilot reproducing copyrighted works verbatim. But if they can’t do that… why should anybody take their claims of copyright infringement seriously? If nobody can point to copyright infringement having taken place, what basis is there for believing it has? As you say, the standard is access to the work and producing a work that is substantially similar to the other. The former has been demonstrated. People are asking about the latter. So “where can we find the original in the model?” is possibly the single most relevant question there is. It’s a clear line that divides infringement from inspiration, and it can be proved definitively if copyright infringement has been observed to occur.
- bdowling 4y ago
  If there was an actual case, the question would be whether the defendant had access to the original work. If the original work was used to train the AI model, then the answer is yes. It's not necessary for the model to contain a copy of the original work.
  - JimDabell 4y ago
    That wouldn’t be the question because nobody is disputing the access to the original work. You mentioned two factors. That’s the first, which nobody is questioning. The thing people are questioning is the second factor, the reproduction of the original work. A copy must be made for there to be copyright infringement. Who has shown a copy has been made? If a copy has been observed to occur, it’s trivial to demonstrate copyright infringement. Who has done this?
    - bdowling 4y ago
      I may have misunderstood. I thought we were talking about an AI output that might be substantially similar to an original used to train the AI. If we're considering only the use of the original as a training image, then I don't know if that would infringe.

JimDabell 4y ago

> producing a work that is "substantial similar" to the original. So the question “where in the model is your original?” is a reasonable and relevant question to ask. If this person can induce the model to produce a work that is reasonably considered a copy of their original, then fair enough. All they have to do is give a prompt and a seed and they can prove copyright infringement very easily because anybody else with similar hardware and software can demonstrate the infringement on demand. If I understand correctly, this has happened with GitHub Copilot, with Copilot reproducing copyrighted works verbatim. But if they can’t do that… why should anybody take their claims of copyright infringement seriously? If nobody can point to copyright infringement having taken place, what basis is there for believing it has? As you say, the standard is access to the work and producing a work that is substantially similar to the other. The former has been demonstrated. People are asking about the latter. So “where can we find the original in the model?” is possibly the single most relevant question there is. It’s a clear line that divides infringement from inspiration, and it can be proved definitively if copyright infringement has been observed to occur.

bdowling 4y ago
If there was an actual case, the question would be whether the defendant had access to the original work. If the original work was used to train the AI model, then the answer is yes. It's not necessary for the model to contain a copy of the original work.
- JimDabell 4y ago
  That wouldn’t be the question because nobody is disputing the access to the original work. You mentioned two factors. That’s the first, which nobody is questioning. The thing people are questioning is the second factor, the reproduction of the original work. A copy must be made for there to be copyright infringement. Who has shown a copy has been made? If a copy has been observed to occur, it’s trivial to demonstrate copyright infringement. Who has done this?
  - bdowling 4y ago
    I may have misunderstood. I thought we were talking about an AI output that might be substantially similar to an original used to train the AI. If we're considering only the use of the original as a training image, then I don't know if that would infringe.