5 ms·

It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned: the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data. > It's finding patter

It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned: the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data. > It's finding patterns same as anyone studying the code base would do. No, it's quite unlike anyone studying data, because it's not a person with legal rights, such as fair use, but an automated algorithm. There is absolutely no legal debate that copyright applies only to human authors, or only to the human created part of a mixed work, there is vast jurisprudence on this; by extension, any fair use rights too, exist only for human users of the works. Derivation by automated means - for the express economic purpose of out-competing the creator in the market place, no less - is completely outside the spirit of copyright.

fauigerzigerk 4y ago
I don't think anyone would argue that an AI has fair use rights as a person, but corporations do.
mdorazio 4y ago
> It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned - the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data. Can you point to a legal case that confirms this? Because it’s not at all clear that this is true from a legal standpoint. “X would not exist without Y” is not a sufficient test for derivative works - it’s far more nuanced.
- cornholio 4y ago
  United States copyright law in quite clear on the matter: >A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. The emphasis part clearly applies: not only the AI model needs to be trained on massive amounts of copyrighted works *); but without these input works, it displays no intrinsic creative ability, it has no capacity to produce a single intelligible word or sketch. All creative features of its productions are a transformation of (and only of) the creative features of the inputs, the AI algorithm has no "intelligence" in the common meaning of the word and no ability to create original works. *) by that, I mean a specific instance of the model with certain desirable features, for example the ability to imitate the style of J.K Rowling
  - anotherman554 4y ago
    That's an interesting analysis. The issue isn't really whether the A.I. has creative ability, though, if we're talking about whether it infringes copyright. I think comparing the A.I. to a really simple bot is informative. If I wrote a novel that contained once sentence from 1,000 people's novels, it would probably be fair use since I hardly took anything from any individual person and because my novel is probably not harming those other writers. If I wrote a bot that did the same thing, same result, because my bot uses only a little from everyone's novel and doesn't harm the original novelist, so it's likely fair use. Now I think a J.K. Rowling A.I. probably takes at least a little from her when it produces output, but it's not clear to me how much is actually based on J.K. Rowling and how much is a dataset of how words tend to be associated with other words. You could design a J.K. Rowling A.I. that uses nothing from J.K. Rowling, just data that is said to be J.K. Rowling-esque.
    - shagie 4y ago
      Your one sentence from one thousand works is likely seen as transformative. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ > Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work. Creating a model from copyrighted works is likely sufficiently transformative to be non-infringing even if it is found to be a derivative work.
      - anotherman554 4y ago
        "Creating a model from copyrighted works is likely sufficiently transformative to be non-infringing even if it is found to be a derivative work." Maybe, but one of the factors of fair use is whether it deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. If ChatGPD gets so good at writing J.K. Rowling novels that it hurts the sales of the next J.K. Rowling book, that's a strong argument against the use being fair, even if it is transformative. If J.K. Rowling signs an exclusive agreement with Google to train on J.K. Rowling novels, that's another factors that would suggest OpenAI's use is not fair, because she's shown OpenAI is hurting a potential market for J.K. Rowling selling the use of her novels to train A.I.
pmoriarty 4y ago
The output of human copyrighted work wouldn't exist if it weren't for humans training on the output of other humans. Humans constantly use cliches in their writing and speech, and most of what they produce is a repackaged version of what someone else has written or said, yet no one's up in arms against this mass of unoriginality as long as it's human-generated. This is anti-AI bias, pure and simple.
- mattigames 4y ago
  It's a bit more nuanced than that, what I mean is that the slow speed at which humans learn it's a foundation block of our society, if suddenly some new race of humans emerged that could read an entire book in a couple of minutes and achieve lifelong superhuman retention and assimilation of all that knowledge then we would have the exact same type of concerns than what we have today about AI, including how easily they could recreate high quality art, music and anything else with just a tiny fraction of the effort that the rest of us need to reach similar results.
  - whateveracct 4y ago
    Startup technologists have been acting like speed of actions doesn't matter for decades. If a person can do it, why shouldn't a computer do it 1000x faster? What could go wrong? It's always been a poor argument at best and a bad faith one at worst.
    - mattigames 4y ago
      Well said. The mindless automation away of everything has only one logical conclusion in which the creators of such automations are automated themselves, and even if the optimists are right and we never get there it doesn't matter, the chaos it can make just by getting closer at faster rates than society can adapt is unprecedented, specially given that the population count is at all times high and there are many other simultaneous threats that need our attention (e.g. climate change)
- rebuilder 4y ago
raincole 4y ago
> It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned ...in your head. In the US (and most countries) there is no such legal case so far.
est31 4y ago
Students in school also will not never learn to read without being exposed to text. Does this mean that teachers who write exercise sheets and school text book publishers now own the copyright of everything students do?
- edgyquant 4y ago
  AI is not a human being or a student in school. It’s a software tool, stop comparing the two.
  - est31 4y ago
    Being in school is also just a tool to knowing stuff, being able to read, and being around similar aged peers, etc. Whether the knowledge is directly in your brain or in a device you operate (directly or through an API) shouldn't really matter. If it's forbidden for a human to move a stone with manual labour, then it's also forbidden to move that stone with an excavator. This has nothing to do with the person being a human and the other person being an excavator controlled by a human: it's not authorized. I think that we should allow humans to move stones up the hill with excavators too. There is no stealing of excavator fuel from human food sources going on (let's assume it's not biofuel operated :p).
    - cornholio 4y ago
      > If it's forbidden for a human to move a stone with manual labour, then it's also forbidden to move that stone with an excavator. Sure, but the reverse is false: I can walk on my own feet through Hyde Park, but I can't ride my excavator there. Laws are made by humans for the benefit of humans, it's a political struggle. Now, large corporation try to exploit loopholes in the existing copyright framework in order to expropriate creators of their works. It's standard uberisation: disrupt existing economic models, insert yourself as a unavoidable middle man and pauperize the workforce the provides the actual service.

fauigerzigerk 4y ago

I don't think anyone would argue that an AI has fair use rights as a person, but corporations do.

mdorazio 4y ago

> It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned - the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data. Can you point to a legal case that confirms this? Because it’s not at all clear that this is true from a legal standpoint. “X would not exist without Y” is not a sufficient test for derivative works - it’s far more nuanced.

cornholio 4y ago
United States copyright law in quite clear on the matter: >A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. The emphasis part clearly applies: not only the AI model needs to be trained on massive amounts of copyrighted works *); but without these input works, it displays no intrinsic creative ability, it has no capacity to produce a single intelligible word or sketch. All creative features of its productions are a transformation of (and only of) the creative features of the inputs, the AI algorithm has no "intelligence" in the common meaning of the word and no ability to create original works. *) by that, I mean a specific instance of the model with certain desirable features, for example the ability to imitate the style of J.K Rowling
- anotherman554 4y ago
  That's an interesting analysis. The issue isn't really whether the A.I. has creative ability, though, if we're talking about whether it infringes copyright. I think comparing the A.I. to a really simple bot is informative. If I wrote a novel that contained once sentence from 1,000 people's novels, it would probably be fair use since I hardly took anything from any individual person and because my novel is probably not harming those other writers. If I wrote a bot that did the same thing, same result, because my bot uses only a little from everyone's novel and doesn't harm the original novelist, so it's likely fair use. Now I think a J.K. Rowling A.I. probably takes at least a little from her when it produces output, but it's not clear to me how much is actually based on J.K. Rowling and how much is a dataset of how words tend to be associated with other words. You could design a J.K. Rowling A.I. that uses nothing from J.K. Rowling, just data that is said to be J.K. Rowling-esque.
  - shagie 4y ago
    Your one sentence from one thousand works is likely seen as transformative. https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ > Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work. Creating a model from copyrighted works is likely sufficiently transformative to be non-infringing even if it is found to be a derivative work.
    - anotherman554 4y ago
      "Creating a model from copyrighted works is likely sufficiently transformative to be non-infringing even if it is found to be a derivative work." Maybe, but one of the factors of fair use is whether it deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. If ChatGPD gets so good at writing J.K. Rowling novels that it hurts the sales of the next J.K. Rowling book, that's a strong argument against the use being fair, even if it is transformative. If J.K. Rowling signs an exclusive agreement with Google to train on J.K. Rowling novels, that's another factors that would suggest OpenAI's use is not fair, because she's shown OpenAI is hurting a potential market for J.K. Rowling selling the use of her novels to train A.I.

pmoriarty 4y ago

The output of human copyrighted work wouldn't exist if it weren't for humans training on the output of other humans. Humans constantly use cliches in their writing and speech, and most of what they produce is a repackaged version of what someone else has written or said, yet no one's up in arms against this mass of unoriginality as long as it's human-generated. This is anti-AI bias, pure and simple.

mattigames 4y ago
It's a bit more nuanced than that, what I mean is that the slow speed at which humans learn it's a foundation block of our society, if suddenly some new race of humans emerged that could read an entire book in a couple of minutes and achieve lifelong superhuman retention and assimilation of all that knowledge then we would have the exact same type of concerns than what we have today about AI, including how easily they could recreate high quality art, music and anything else with just a tiny fraction of the effort that the rest of us need to reach similar results.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  Startup technologists have been acting like speed of actions doesn't matter for decades. If a person can do it, why shouldn't a computer do it 1000x faster? What could go wrong? It's always been a poor argument at best and a bad faith one at worst.
  - mattigames 4y ago
    Well said. The mindless automation away of everything has only one logical conclusion in which the creators of such automations are automated themselves, and even if the optimists are right and we never get there it doesn't matter, the chaos it can make just by getting closer at faster rates than society can adapt is unprecedented, specially given that the population count is at all times high and there are many other simultaneous threats that need our attention (e.g. climate change)
rebuilder 4y ago

raincole 4y ago

> It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned ...in your head. In the US (and most countries) there is no such legal case so far.

est31 4y ago

Students in school also will not never learn to read without being exposed to text. Does this mean that teachers who write exercise sheets and school text book publishers now own the copyright of everything students do?

edgyquant 4y ago
AI is not a human being or a student in school. It’s a software tool, stop comparing the two.
- est31 4y ago
  Being in school is also just a tool to knowing stuff, being able to read, and being around similar aged peers, etc. Whether the knowledge is directly in your brain or in a device you operate (directly or through an API) shouldn't really matter. If it's forbidden for a human to move a stone with manual labour, then it's also forbidden to move that stone with an excavator. This has nothing to do with the person being a human and the other person being an excavator controlled by a human: it's not authorized. I think that we should allow humans to move stones up the hill with excavators too. There is no stealing of excavator fuel from human food sources going on (let's assume it's not biofuel operated :p).
  - cornholio 4y ago
    > If it's forbidden for a human to move a stone with manual labour, then it's also forbidden to move that stone with an excavator. Sure, but the reverse is false: I can walk on my own feet through Hyde Park, but I can't ride my excavator there. Laws are made by humans for the benefit of humans, it's a political struggle. Now, large corporation try to exploit loopholes in the existing copyright framework in order to expropriate creators of their works. It's standard uberisation: disrupt existing economic models, insert yourself as a unavoidable middle man and pauperize the workforce the provides the actual service.