4 ms·

So we are in agreement that it is not violating copyright laws to run the algorithm on copyrighted works to produce the model, because if it is, my thoughts cou

by jonkho 4y ago

So we are in agreement that it is not violating copyright laws to run the algorithm on copyrighted works to produce the model, because if it is, my thoughts could be illegal too. In the end only actions such as reproducing the work and distributing it can be a violation. In other words, the end user of the model is the one to be held responsible if they reproduce and distribute the copyrighted material.

dahart 4y ago
You have to acquire the source material legally. You can be in violation of copyright for copying music you didn’t buy. If you acquire work legally, you’re legally allowed to make backup copies for yourself, if you don’t distribute it. You can be in violation of copyright if you distribute something you don’t have the copyrights for. Thoughts are never illegal wrt US Copyright Law. It’s a straw man to insist on making this point. > In other words, the end user of the model is the one to be held responsible if they reproduce and distribute the copyrighted material. No, this is false because it is the creators of the model that 1) did not legally acquire the source material and 2) distributed the network that contains latent copies of the source material that end users can use to reproduce works from.
- jonkho 4y ago
  > You have to acquire the source material legally. You can be in violation of copyright for copying music you didn’t buy. This is incorrect. As another poster mentioned, it is not illegal to read a stolen book. It is only illegal to steal the book. Secondly the source material is acquired legally since it is open to consumption on the open internet. Thirdly model does not contain “latent copies of the source material”. By using a simple test (currently legal standard) that if I showed you the node weights and counts of the network no person even trained in the art can identify it to a specific piece of work. Therefore it is at best a derivative, reasonably distinct.
  - dahart 4y ago
    > By using a simple test (currently legal standard) that if I showed you the node weights Nope, this is strawman and continuing to demonstrate a misunderstanding of Copyright Law. There is no such legal standard, where did you get that? If the network can reproduce a work, then it does in fact contain a latent copy. Arguing that you can’t see it by inspecting node weights is straw man. You cannot argue that you’re not copying music if you use a new compression algorithm and then suggest it’s distinct and derivative because nobody can read the raw compressed data. That’s not how Copyright Law works. If you can approximately re-perform someone else’s work, you’re in violation. This is true even if you have to run a black-box program to produce the output. > no person even trained in the art can identify it to a specific piece of work Ironically, you’re actually admitting that even AI researchers can’t prove the network won’t reproduce someone’s work. The rest you seem to now be looking for a snarky gotcha, which if you don’t want to have a discussion, then I’m uninterested in discussing further. I made clear above and in a sibling comment that remixes are gray area, and this question is complicated. That said, even if AI people do acquire source material legally, they are in fact copying it and distributing it, and that part alone can potentially violate US Copyright Law. This isn’t even up for debate, so I don’t know why you’re attempting to suggest otherwise. The lawsuits mentioned in the article were brought on evidence that networks violated copyrights of specific existing works, and lots of people have found specific examples of violations.
    - jonkho 4y ago
      My claim has always been that 1) the creating of the model is does not violate copyright. Claiming otherwise means running same algorithm in meatspace would violate copyright laws, which implies thoughts violates laws which is absurd. 2) distribution of the model does not violate copyright laws because the models themselves do not contain latent copies of the work. The model itself is not the work nor a recognizable copy of it nor can it be reconstituted back to the work. It is a tool more analogous to photoshop where the tool can be used to reproduce copyrighted work, yes, by the end user (where I believe the responsibility lies). But the tool itself is not copyrighted work. Microsoft word can be used to generate copyrighted books if I’m correct. Or I can hire smarter tool: a human writer to produce copyrighted works. Is the writer-for-hire illegal? Or his employability is illegal? Of course not. I believe the law will eventually take the position that AI model is a tool.

by jonkho 4y ago

dahart 4y ago

You have to acquire the source material legally. You can be in violation of copyright for copying music you didn’t buy. If you acquire work legally, you’re legally allowed to make backup copies for yourself, if you don’t distribute it. You can be in violation of copyright if you distribute something you don’t have the copyrights for. Thoughts are never illegal wrt US Copyright Law. It’s a straw man to insist on making this point. > In other words, the end user of the model is the one to be held responsible if they reproduce and distribute the copyrighted material. No, this is false because it is the creators of the model that 1) did not legally acquire the source material and 2) distributed the network that contains latent copies of the source material that end users can use to reproduce works from.

jonkho 4y ago
> You have to acquire the source material legally. You can be in violation of copyright for copying music you didn’t buy. This is incorrect. As another poster mentioned, it is not illegal to read a stolen book. It is only illegal to steal the book. Secondly the source material is acquired legally since it is open to consumption on the open internet. Thirdly model does not contain “latent copies of the source material”. By using a simple test (currently legal standard) that if I showed you the node weights and counts of the network no person even trained in the art can identify it to a specific piece of work. Therefore it is at best a derivative, reasonably distinct.
- dahart 4y ago
  > By using a simple test (currently legal standard) that if I showed you the node weights Nope, this is strawman and continuing to demonstrate a misunderstanding of Copyright Law. There is no such legal standard, where did you get that? If the network can reproduce a work, then it does in fact contain a latent copy. Arguing that you can’t see it by inspecting node weights is straw man. You cannot argue that you’re not copying music if you use a new compression algorithm and then suggest it’s distinct and derivative because nobody can read the raw compressed data. That’s not how Copyright Law works. If you can approximately re-perform someone else’s work, you’re in violation. This is true even if you have to run a black-box program to produce the output. > no person even trained in the art can identify it to a specific piece of work Ironically, you’re actually admitting that even AI researchers can’t prove the network won’t reproduce someone’s work. The rest you seem to now be looking for a snarky gotcha, which if you don’t want to have a discussion, then I’m uninterested in discussing further. I made clear above and in a sibling comment that remixes are gray area, and this question is complicated. That said, even if AI people do acquire source material legally, they are in fact copying it and distributing it, and that part alone can potentially violate US Copyright Law. This isn’t even up for debate, so I don’t know why you’re attempting to suggest otherwise. The lawsuits mentioned in the article were brought on evidence that networks violated copyrights of specific existing works, and lots of people have found specific examples of violations.
  - jonkho 4y ago
    My claim has always been that 1) the creating of the model is does not violate copyright. Claiming otherwise means running same algorithm in meatspace would violate copyright laws, which implies thoughts violates laws which is absurd. 2) distribution of the model does not violate copyright laws because the models themselves do not contain latent copies of the work. The model itself is not the work nor a recognizable copy of it nor can it be reconstituted back to the work. It is a tool more analogous to photoshop where the tool can be used to reproduce copyrighted work, yes, by the end user (where I believe the responsibility lies). But the tool itself is not copyrighted work. Microsoft word can be used to generate copyrighted books if I’m correct. Or I can hire smarter tool: a human writer to produce copyrighted works. Is the writer-for-hire illegal? Or his employability is illegal? Of course not. I believe the law will eventually take the position that AI model is a tool.