4 ms·

> now you are applying a filter (creating a derivative work) to defeat a copyright protection mechanism, Aren't you kind of jumping ahead and assuming copyrigh

> now you are applying a filter (creating a derivative work) to defeat a copyright protection mechanism, Aren't you kind of jumping ahead and assuming copyright protection applies to ML training? I thought this remains undecided right now.

kevingadd 4y ago
My understanding is that the actual circumvention of protections on a copyrighted work is itself a crime under the DMCA, unless your use case is covered by an exemption. It's not a specific set of prohibited uses that doesn't include ML. In short: "Section 103 (17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)) of the DMCA states: No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." So if Glaze is viewed as a protection measure, circumventing it would itself be a breach.
- none_to_remain 4y ago
  But I think whether this is a protection measure is undecided.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    I think it would be hard to argue it isn't. It is the only value that such a system could theoretically provide, so there is no other reason someone would use it. What would be the argument that it is not one?
    - alwayslikethis 4y ago
      How are you applying a filter or circumventing anything if you are simply training a brand new model with a bunch of "cloaked" images?
      - bawolff 4y ago
        Oh, i was thinking the scenario was more a specialized tool to remove the "glaze". Hmm. That's a good point and now i am less sure. I suspect it would come down to intentionality.
    - none_to_remain 4y ago
      I looked at the definition in the law and it was unclear to me whether this technique met the definition. Among other things there's no "authorized deGlazing" to recover the original going on during human viewings. But there seemed to be enough leeway that maybe a judge could find a fit
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  If training LLMs on copyright protected art is itself Fair Use, then the motivating and only significant purpose of this is to adversely impact noninfringing uses. That’s the textbook reason for the Librarian of Congress to establish exemptions from the anti-circumvention rules, so even if as a legal hack that was effective initially, it wouldn’t be likely to last very long.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Why would it need to specifically circumvent this instead of casually circumventing it simply by better mapping how the bits on a program map to how an image appears to the viewer? if f(x)1011 and 1010 both "look" the same shouldn't a well designed AI learn equally well to recreate that particular look. It doesn't need a "deglaze" circumvention step it just needs a continually improving learning process that automatically accommodates both glazed and un-glazed images.
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    Right, a tool explicitly designed and used to "deglaze" images would be different from a network that just happens to not be affected by glaze, I expect.
- gpderetta 4y ago
  Keyword being "effectively". If routine cropping and resizing defeat it, then it is hardly effective.

kevingadd 4y ago

My understanding is that the actual circumvention of protections on a copyrighted work is itself a crime under the DMCA, unless your use case is covered by an exemption. It's not a specific set of prohibited uses that doesn't include ML. In short: "Section 103 (17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)) of the DMCA states: No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." So if Glaze is viewed as a protection measure, circumventing it would itself be a breach.

none_to_remain 4y ago
But I think whether this is a protection measure is undecided.
- bawolff 4y ago
  I think it would be hard to argue it isn't. It is the only value that such a system could theoretically provide, so there is no other reason someone would use it. What would be the argument that it is not one?
  - alwayslikethis 4y ago
    How are you applying a filter or circumventing anything if you are simply training a brand new model with a bunch of "cloaked" images?
    - bawolff 4y ago
      Oh, i was thinking the scenario was more a specialized tool to remove the "glaze". Hmm. That's a good point and now i am less sure. I suspect it would come down to intentionality.
  - none_to_remain 4y ago
    I looked at the definition in the law and it was unclear to me whether this technique met the definition. Among other things there's no "authorized deGlazing" to recover the original going on during human viewings. But there seemed to be enough leeway that maybe a judge could find a fit
dragonwriter 4y ago
If training LLMs on copyright protected art is itself Fair Use, then the motivating and only significant purpose of this is to adversely impact noninfringing uses. That’s the textbook reason for the Librarian of Congress to establish exemptions from the anti-circumvention rules, so even if as a legal hack that was effective initially, it wouldn’t be likely to last very long.
michaelmrose 4y ago
Why would it need to specifically circumvent this instead of casually circumventing it simply by better mapping how the bits on a program map to how an image appears to the viewer? if f(x)1011 and 1010 both "look" the same shouldn't a well designed AI learn equally well to recreate that particular look. It doesn't need a "deglaze" circumvention step it just needs a continually improving learning process that automatically accommodates both glazed and un-glazed images.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Right, a tool explicitly designed and used to "deglaze" images would be different from a network that just happens to not be affected by glaze, I expect.
gpderetta 4y ago
Keyword being "effectively". If routine cropping and resizing defeat it, then it is hardly effective.