5 ms·

> Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? Or observe paintings? Or listen to music? Yes, that’s exactly what happens when you

> Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? Or observe paintings? Or listen to music? Yes, that’s exactly what happens when you buy a book, or pay for a music subscription. The work is in the public domain, then global permission to observe and copy the work is already granted. > Do you ask for permission when you get new ideas from HN that aren't your own? You don’t need to. It’s implicitly assumed, by virtue of publishing in a public forum, that the author is providing permission for people read their comments and ideas, and remix them as they wish. That permission doesn’t include exact replication, but reading and understanding is assumed, otherwise why did the author publish it? > Humans are constantly ingesting gobs of "copyrighted" insights that they eventually remix into their own creations without necessarily reimbursing the original source(s) of their creativity. Correct. Literally everything produced by a human is automatically copyrighted. But the manner in which work is published creates implicit licenses for the public to consume those works. You publish in public, you automatically grate licenses for the public to consume and transform it. If a human transforms an idea, it automatically becomes a new idea with its own copyright. The same doesn’t apply to AI because they’re not human, and thus the law generally doesn’t recognise them an having ability to create or transform ideas. If you believe AI can create and transform ideas, then you need lobby for the law to recognise that ability, but right now, only natural humans have that ability according to the law

hnlmorg 4y ago
> You publish in public, you automatically grate licenses for the public to consume and transform it. No you don’t. That would fall under the category of “derivative work” which is still the intellectual property of the original author under most jurisdiction copyright laws. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
- chii 4y ago
  Unless the resulting "derivative work" is sufficiently transformative. Which, i would argue, training an AI/ML is. Therefore, using a training dataset does not constitute copyright violation. If the AI outputted an exact copy (or a close enough copy, that the laymen would agree it's a copy), then that particular instance of the AI's output is in violation of copyright. The AI model itself violate any copyright.
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    > Which, i would argue, training an AI/ML is. > Therefore, using a training dataset does not constitute copyright violation. It's not for you to decide that. Different jurisdictions will have their own process for deciding that and none of them are based on the opinions of random commentators on internet message boards. Also please bare in mind my comment was reply to a specific statement (repeated below) and not talking about AI in general: > You publish in public, you automatically grate licenses for the public to consume and transform it. ^ this statement is not correct for the reasons I posted. AI discussions might add colour to the debate but it doesn't alter the incorrectness of the above statement. > If the AI outputted an exact copy (or a close enough copy, that the laymen would agree it's a copy), then that particular instance of the AI's output is in violation of copyright. The AI model itself violate any copyright. That assumption needs testing in courts. As I've posted elsewhere, there have been plenty of cases where copyright holders have successfully sued other creators based on new works that have bared a resemblance to existing works. It happens all the time. I remember reading a story about how a newly successful author was being handed ideas from fans during a book signing only for one of her representatives to intercept them each time. When they later asked why the representative took them, the representative said "it's because if any of your future books follow a similar idea, that fan could sue. But if we can prove you haven't read the idea then the fan has no claim". (to paraphrase) Experts don't all agree on where the line is with similar works created by humans, let alone the implications of copyrighted content being used as training data for computers. And this is true for every jurisdiction I've researched. So to have random people on HN talk as confidently as they do about this being all perfectly legal is rather preposterous. You don't even fully grasp the intricacies of copyright law in your own jurisdiction, let alone the wider world. In fact this is such a blurred line that I wouldn't be surprised if the some cases would have different rulings in different courts within that same jurisdiction. It's definitely not as clear cut as you allude to.
kragen 4y ago
not literally everything this comment says about copyright is false, but it does pack an impressive number of errors into a comparatively small space
jstummbillig 4y ago
If an AI is not a human (I agree) it's a tool, that a human or company created. If it's a tool, the product belongs to the person who owns or uses (which is an important distinction, but not for this case) the tool. Ownership of the product can then be transferred to a new owner through whatever legal means. If we agree on this, what we need to resolve mostly seems to be, in how far a human should not be allowed to use publicly available data to make his tool, in the same way he is allowed to use publicly available data to make anything else.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sircastor 4y ago
>Yes, that’s exactly what happens when you buy a book, or pay for a music subscription. The work is in the public domain, then global permission to observe and copy the work is already granted. When you buy a book, you’re not paying a licensing fee. You’re exchanging for goods. You’re granted very few rights to own a copy of the work. But they’re almost all to do with distribution. None of those rights is the right to read it. >You publish in public, you automatically grate licenses for the public to consume and transform it. By this interpretation, all the artists upset by stable diffusion have given tacit permission for their works to be used as they are published in the public. Even though those works are posted to websites, the artist has not granted any rights to the viewer of the work. > only natural humans have that ability according to the law The law is not explicit about this, and we have case law that describes non-human entities as having rights associated historically with personhood. This is definitely not clear, nor is it obvious.
- clnq 4y ago
  When you buy a book or some other artwork, it is implicitly assumed you will put it in your brain, or your meat neural net. And that your brain could produce something related to this content. It's not just assumed, it's celebrated when a work of art gathers fans who produce their own, inspired content. Not sure why it needs to be over-complicated or different for silicone neural nets. But I think it will get very over-complicated, if not politicised, in the following years.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Trademark and copyright already restrict what humans can do with others work. If too similar then it could prompt legal action.
    - clnq 4y ago
      The same could be applied to AI-generated work.
      - deleted 4y ago
Levitz 4y ago
>You don’t need to. It’s implicitly assumed, by virtue of publishing in a public forum, that the author is providing permission for people read their comments and ideas, and remix them as they wish. That permission doesn’t include exact replication, but reading and understanding is assumed, otherwise why did the author publish it? Following this logic, isn't training AI on Github or Deviantart 100% fair game then? It's not like OpenAI is infiltrating computers and reading hidden away data.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  Only if you assume that ML models should be treated as though they have the same rights and privileges as humans. Personally I reject that. ML needs to be restricted heavily.
  - Terretta 4y ago
    Why does it need to? It's just the agent of a human. Sounds like an option instead of a need.
    - bluefirebrand 4y ago
      You're saying this as though we don't already have lots of regulations on tools to ensure that people use them appropriately. Forklifts are "agents of humans" but you still need a license to drive one. It's pretty obvious to me at least that AI bros are using these tools recklessly and inappropriately, without regard for licensing or copyright, and therefore I am proposing that the tools need to be regulated. Simple as that.
- jcelerier 4y ago
  > Following this logic, isn't training AI on Github or Deviantart 100% fair game then? Unlike forum comments, GitHub code generally has an explicit license attached which you'd have to respect - you know, for instance by giving attribution to every MIT-licensed source that was used. And even then, let's say someone releases a book with all your HN comments: you are definitely entitled to sue them for copyright. Here's some info from the BBS era, which is still relevant today: https://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html https://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
williamcotton 4y ago
> > Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? Or observe paintings? Or listen to music? > Yes, that’s exactly what happens when you buy a book, or pay for a music subscription. The work is in the public domain, then global permission to observe and copy the work is already granted. You can buy a book, read it, sell the book, and then write and sell another book based on the ideas contained in the first book (Baker v Seldon). This is the cornerstone of contemporary copyright law. Or read the book on a shelf of a bookstore where the clerk is asleep. Or borrow the book from the library or any other manner where direct compensation of the author is nowhere to be seen. Copyright is consistently interpreted in alignment with the needs of public learning, both by protecting the authorial incentive as well as protecting the public need for knowledge.
trogdor 4y ago
>> Do you ask for permission when you get new ideas from HN that aren't your own? >>You don’t need to. It’s implicitly assumed, by virtue of publishing in a public forum, that the author is providing permission for people read their comments and ideas, and remix them as they wish. Ideas are not eligible for copyright protection.
ok123456 4y ago
>Yes, that’s exactly what happens when you buy a book, or pay for a music subscription. The work is in the public domain, then global permission to observe and copy the work is already granted. Libraries exist.
rickydroll 4y ago
> If you believe AI can create and transform ideas, then you need lobby for the law to recognise that ability, but right now, only natural humans have that ability according to the law My experience with ML tools like co-pilot is why I reject copyright claims on ML systems. there are a tool that generated original work based on my instructions not unlike a paintbrush, photoshop, or a CNC machine. My instructions were based on my exposure to copyrighted works. I use co-pilot as an accessibility device enabling me to write code again. like with speech recognition co-pilot is a force multiplier IF you change how you work. If you keep using the habits formed by typing, you will get shit results. The end result of the shift in how I work is now I know how to tell co-pilot how to write code in my style. My co-pilot generated code is no less my code than what I generate by hand. Co-pilot acts as an extension of my brain, not my fingers. Is my co-pilot generated code copyrightable? I say yes because it is the result of this human's creation and instruction.

hnlmorg 4y ago

> You publish in public, you automatically grate licenses for the public to consume and transform it. No you don’t. That would fall under the category of “derivative work” which is still the intellectual property of the original author under most jurisdiction copyright laws. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

chii 4y ago
Unless the resulting "derivative work" is sufficiently transformative. Which, i would argue, training an AI/ML is. Therefore, using a training dataset does not constitute copyright violation. If the AI outputted an exact copy (or a close enough copy, that the laymen would agree it's a copy), then that particular instance of the AI's output is in violation of copyright. The AI model itself violate any copyright.
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  > Which, i would argue, training an AI/ML is. > Therefore, using a training dataset does not constitute copyright violation. It's not for you to decide that. Different jurisdictions will have their own process for deciding that and none of them are based on the opinions of random commentators on internet message boards. Also please bare in mind my comment was reply to a specific statement (repeated below) and not talking about AI in general: > You publish in public, you automatically grate licenses for the public to consume and transform it. ^ this statement is not correct for the reasons I posted. AI discussions might add colour to the debate but it doesn't alter the incorrectness of the above statement. > If the AI outputted an exact copy (or a close enough copy, that the laymen would agree it's a copy), then that particular instance of the AI's output is in violation of copyright. The AI model itself violate any copyright. That assumption needs testing in courts. As I've posted elsewhere, there have been plenty of cases where copyright holders have successfully sued other creators based on new works that have bared a resemblance to existing works. It happens all the time. I remember reading a story about how a newly successful author was being handed ideas from fans during a book signing only for one of her representatives to intercept them each time. When they later asked why the representative took them, the representative said "it's because if any of your future books follow a similar idea, that fan could sue. But if we can prove you haven't read the idea then the fan has no claim". (to paraphrase) Experts don't all agree on where the line is with similar works created by humans, let alone the implications of copyrighted content being used as training data for computers. And this is true for every jurisdiction I've researched. So to have random people on HN talk as confidently as they do about this being all perfectly legal is rather preposterous. You don't even fully grasp the intricacies of copyright law in your own jurisdiction, let alone the wider world. In fact this is such a blurred line that I wouldn't be surprised if the some cases would have different rulings in different courts within that same jurisdiction. It's definitely not as clear cut as you allude to.

kragen 4y ago

not literally everything this comment says about copyright is false, but it does pack an impressive number of errors into a comparatively small space

jstummbillig 4y ago

If an AI is not a human (I agree) it's a tool, that a human or company created. If it's a tool, the product belongs to the person who owns or uses (which is an important distinction, but not for this case) the tool. Ownership of the product can then be transferred to a new owner through whatever legal means. If we agree on this, what we need to resolve mostly seems to be, in how far a human should not be allowed to use publicly available data to make his tool, in the same way he is allowed to use publicly available data to make anything else.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sircastor 4y ago

>Yes, that’s exactly what happens when you buy a book, or pay for a music subscription. The work is in the public domain, then global permission to observe and copy the work is already granted. When you buy a book, you’re not paying a licensing fee. You’re exchanging for goods. You’re granted very few rights to own a copy of the work. But they’re almost all to do with distribution. None of those rights is the right to read it. >You publish in public, you automatically grate licenses for the public to consume and transform it. By this interpretation, all the artists upset by stable diffusion have given tacit permission for their works to be used as they are published in the public. Even though those works are posted to websites, the artist has not granted any rights to the viewer of the work. > only natural humans have that ability according to the law The law is not explicit about this, and we have case law that describes non-human entities as having rights associated historically with personhood. This is definitely not clear, nor is it obvious.

clnq 4y ago
When you buy a book or some other artwork, it is implicitly assumed you will put it in your brain, or your meat neural net. And that your brain could produce something related to this content. It's not just assumed, it's celebrated when a work of art gathers fans who produce their own, inspired content. Not sure why it needs to be over-complicated or different for silicone neural nets. But I think it will get very over-complicated, if not politicised, in the following years.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Trademark and copyright already restrict what humans can do with others work. If too similar then it could prompt legal action.
  - clnq 4y ago
    The same could be applied to AI-generated work.
    - deleted 4y ago

Levitz 4y ago

>You don’t need to. It’s implicitly assumed, by virtue of publishing in a public forum, that the author is providing permission for people read their comments and ideas, and remix them as they wish. That permission doesn’t include exact replication, but reading and understanding is assumed, otherwise why did the author publish it? Following this logic, isn't training AI on Github or Deviantart 100% fair game then? It's not like OpenAI is infiltrating computers and reading hidden away data.

bluefirebrand 4y ago
Only if you assume that ML models should be treated as though they have the same rights and privileges as humans. Personally I reject that. ML needs to be restricted heavily.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Why does it need to? It's just the agent of a human. Sounds like an option instead of a need.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    You're saying this as though we don't already have lots of regulations on tools to ensure that people use them appropriately. Forklifts are "agents of humans" but you still need a license to drive one. It's pretty obvious to me at least that AI bros are using these tools recklessly and inappropriately, without regard for licensing or copyright, and therefore I am proposing that the tools need to be regulated. Simple as that.
jcelerier 4y ago
> Following this logic, isn't training AI on Github or Deviantart 100% fair game then? Unlike forum comments, GitHub code generally has an explicit license attached which you'd have to respect - you know, for instance by giving attribution to every MIT-licensed source that was used. And even then, let's say someone releases a book with all your HN comments: you are definitely entitled to sue them for copyright. Here's some info from the BBS era, which is still relevant today: https://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html https://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

williamcotton 4y ago

> > Do you ask for permission when you train your mind on copyrighted books? Or observe paintings? Or listen to music? > Yes, that’s exactly what happens when you buy a book, or pay for a music subscription. The work is in the public domain, then global permission to observe and copy the work is already granted. You can buy a book, read it, sell the book, and then write and sell another book based on the ideas contained in the first book (Baker v Seldon). This is the cornerstone of contemporary copyright law. Or read the book on a shelf of a bookstore where the clerk is asleep. Or borrow the book from the library or any other manner where direct compensation of the author is nowhere to be seen. Copyright is consistently interpreted in alignment with the needs of public learning, both by protecting the authorial incentive as well as protecting the public need for knowledge.

trogdor 4y ago

>> Do you ask for permission when you get new ideas from HN that aren't your own? >>You don’t need to. It’s implicitly assumed, by virtue of publishing in a public forum, that the author is providing permission for people read their comments and ideas, and remix them as they wish. Ideas are not eligible for copyright protection.

ok123456 4y ago

rickydroll 4y ago

> If you believe AI can create and transform ideas, then you need lobby for the law to recognise that ability, but right now, only natural humans have that ability according to the law My experience with ML tools like co-pilot is why I reject copyright claims on ML systems. there are a tool that generated original work based on my instructions not unlike a paintbrush, photoshop, or a CNC machine. My instructions were based on my exposure to copyrighted works. I use co-pilot as an accessibility device enabling me to write code again. like with speech recognition co-pilot is a force multiplier IF you change how you work. If you keep using the habits formed by typing, you will get shit results. The end result of the shift in how I work is now I know how to tell co-pilot how to write code in my style. My co-pilot generated code is no less my code than what I generate by hand. Co-pilot acts as an extension of my brain, not my fingers. Is my co-pilot generated code copyrightable? I say yes because it is the result of this human's creation and instruction.