7 ms·
I guess I’ve always looked at it as “once you publish your data publicly hoping for others to read it, it stops being ‘your data’ and becomes ‘content, made by
by fwlr 4y ago
I guess I’ve always looked at it as “once you publish your data publicly hoping for others to read it, it stops being ‘your data’ and becomes ‘content, made by you’ and you have less rights over it”. It’s only with these recent reactions to ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion that I’ve realized there’s a whole other view on the matter, that ‘your data’ when published becomes ‘your content’ and you still have substantially the same rights over it.
I don’t know which view is better since I’ve only just realized there are more than one.
- thfuran 4y ago>I guess I’ve always looked at it as “once you publish your data publicly hoping for others to read it, it stops being ‘your data’ and becomes ‘content, made by you’ and you have less rights over it”. That's not how copyright or patent law works.
- kuschku 4y agoBut that's how it should work. Which is why licenses like CC-BY-NC-SA and GPL are so popular: Everything is public, everyone can take and use everything, but everyone also has to make their own creations public.
- lionkor 4y agoGPL e.g. imposes significant restrictions, so not sure what your point is. GPL works because of copyright law, and how it actually works.
- kuschku 4y agoMy point is that the way GPL and CC-BY-SA work should be the default for everything. Yes, Copyleft uses the copyright system to enforce its rules, but there is also an alternative future where Copyleft is encoded in law and replaces copyright.
- rrwo 4y agoNo, it isn't. If I publish something on the internet, I am only making it available for people to read. That does not give anyone the right to use it in other ways.
- verdverm 4y agoThere is a thing called "fair use" that lets people do more than just read your copyrighted works. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html We make use of this exception on HN all the time, like this, from the link above: > How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission? > Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.
- waynesonfire 4y agoWhen the entire work is synthesized for the purpose of training a model it's not "limited portions" It makes sense there is no limit on the number of words that can be used under fair use, but it's certainly less than all of them.
- verdverm 4y agoContext matters. You are taking one FAQ question and generalizing. It is permissible to reproduce or show complete works in education, depending on the context. It is also completely normal to read copyrighted work in private, learn something from it, and then answer questions about that work publicly. The questions around LLMs learning from copyrighted material are still open and need to be settled in court. I personally imagine finding infringement would impose more harm on society and progress than letting the models acquire knowledge from these copyrighted works.
- 4y ago
- ipaddr 4y agoWould that work for photos and videos?
- kuschku 4y agoOf course it would, that's what CC-BY-SA is for. Lots of material, e.g. on Wikipedia or material from public broadcasters in Germany is under that license.
- b3morales 4y agoThat's how it should work, but it's not how it does work. I'm willing to give up my copyright on my stuff as soon as Microsoft, Google, MGM, Atlantic, etc. give up theirs. Until then, nope: I get the same rights and protections.
- kuschku 4y agoThat's a fair argument, and one I can fully support :)
- suiiii 4y agoBut that is pretty much how the internet actually works..
- concordDance 4y agoHow is the law relevant to his statement?
- thfuran 4y agoBecause they only meaningful right is one that can be enforced and the law defines those and the mechanisms for enforcement.
- fwlr 4y agoI’m not too surprised to find that my intuition and copyright/patent law differ
- rjmunro 4y agoTry not to call it copyright/patent law. There is copyright law, and there is patent law, and what's true for one is almost never true for the other. Copyright is automatic. Patents are applied for and cost money. Copyright lasts 70 years from your death. Patent's last 25 years from invention. Copyrights don't prevent other people doing the same thing you did. Patents make it illegal to do the same thing, even if you separately invented it and didn't know about the first one etc.
- hoosieree 4y agoIn the US, copyright essentially works like "you automatically have exclusive rights to the work by virtue of creating it". Publishing the work, or even registering it with the Copyright Office, are optional steps that might make it easier to prove your claim if there is a dispute, but that's conceptually separate from your actual rights.
- bioemerl 4y agoIn this case it should be pretty easily resolved, there's never been a right under copyright to control who sees or uses your work. You have the right to control who can copy and redistribute your work, which is a totally different ball game from all of these models. Plus, change copyright, and it doesn't fix a thing except for preventing everything from being open source, because groups like Facebook and Google and all the other websites have you agreed to a terms of service where you say that you agree for the websites right to use the image however they want.
- BeefWellington 4y ago> You have the right to control who can copy and redistribute your work, which is a totally different ball game from all of these models. You kind of glossed over the idea that, no, it's not a totally different ball game without really providing any explanation of why. Also, you have the right to control who can profit from derivative works of yours, which you didn't mention. When you have StableDiffusion's creators being sued by Getty because they CLEARLY trained the model on Getty's catalog, which you can tell because some queries output a warped version of the Getty logo and it reproduces in obvious ways the original photo, there's some problems here. You've basically just made these ML models copyright laundering systems. > Plus, change copyright, and it doesn't fix a thing except for preventing everything from being open source, because groups like Facebook and Google and all the other websites have you agreed to a terms of service where you say that you agree for the websites right to use the image however they want. Maybe copyright is a terrible idea but it's what we're using today.
- bioemerl 4y ago
- amelius 4y agoIf your content ends up in GPT3, then you are one of the programmers of GPT3.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- justinclift 4y agoTo add another wrinkle, it's fairly easy to imagine one of these larger "AI" systems may accidentally ingest a large dataset of people's private information. For example, lets say a not-awake-enough-in-the-morning admin at Equifax misconfigures a proxy server, allowing worldwide (ro?) access to what should be (only) internally viewable customer PII. Clearly it's the "fault" of the company (Equifax in this hypothetical example). But how to unwind the training of that PII data into the "AI", as that data cannot be allowed to "remain" in the AI system and be potentially regurgitated with the right prompting?