4 ms·

The license is "Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International": https://github.com/facebookresearch/dinov2/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/

by TekMol 3y ago

The license is "Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International": https://github.com/facebookresearch/dinov2/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/dinov2/blob/main/LICENSE The license seems to only apply to "sharing" the code. Probably because it addresses copyright issues. But what about commercial use of the code and weights? Can one incorporate those into a server side system which lets users pay for using it?

mkl 3y ago
To get it onto your server you need to copy it (= reproduce it), and so you have to obey the license and not use that copy for commercial purposes. IANAL, but that seems kind of obvious.
- TekMol 3y ago
  If we follow this (obvious as you say) line of thought, can you read the code while at work? Isn't that a use of the copy (your browser made) for commercial purposes? I don't think this is what copyright is about. As far as I know, it is about sharing a copy with a third party. But I am happy to be corrected if someone has a link to a reputable source that says otherwise.
  - mkl 3y ago
    Copyright law is about copying, full-stop. It doesn't matter if you are copying it for yourself, it's still a copy. That's why copyright laws in some jurisdictions had to be updated to allow temporary copies in RAM existing as part of use (e.g. USA [0]), or to allow format-shifting like putting a CD you own on an MP3 player (e.g. NZ [1]), and some attempts didn't get it right at first (e.g. USA [2]). [0] https://itlaw.fandom.com/wiki/Temporary_copies https://itlaw.fandom.com/wiki/Temporary_copies [1] https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/copyright-law https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/copyright-law [2] http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html
    - TekMol 3y ago
      So can you read the code while at work or not? I remain sceptical about the idea that you can't. Look at the license in question: https://github.com/facebookresearch/dinov2/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/dinov2/blob/main/LICENSE Not a single time it talks about the act of copying and/or using the software. It constantly talks about sharing it. The consumer.org.nz page you linked to also mainly focusses on "selling" the data itself and explicitely states that you can make copies for yourself: Can I download mp3s from the internet and copy them to CD? Sure – as long as they were obtained legitimately – either purchased from an online store or from a legal free download. As we said before, if you own the music legally then you can make a copy. This seems to underline my thinking that copyright is mostly about sharing with 3rd parties. Not about the act of duplicating bytes in a technical manner or about what you do with your copy of the bytes.
      - mkl 3y ago
        From the first section of the consumer.org.nz page (emphasis mine): "Can I make a copy of albums I own? Yes. A recent amendment to the Copyright Act means that you can copy music – in the Act as 'sound recordings' – you own for your own personal use.". No such amendment would be needed if copyright was about sharing. Same with the temporary copies in RAM. The license talks about "reproducing", which is copying. You seem to be basically saying that you think Meta's lawyers and Creative Commons's lawyers don't know how to do their jobs (and can be trivially out-thought in a couple of minutes by laypeople), which seems very unlikely.
        TekMol 3y ago
        So can you read the code while at work or not?
        mkl 3y ago
        I don't know why you're so insistent on asking a non-lawyer for legal advice. The license says "NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation", so it depends on your reasons for reading the code (and it doesn't matter whether you do it at work or elsewhere).
riedel 3y ago
It will be hard to use the model without reproducing (copying) it. You may consider any output of the model derivative work and then it would apply. But that goes against the understanding that outputs of ML models are copyrightable. If however, someone runs the model for non-commercial purpose and you take the the output of the model and commercialize it... Copyright law is broken by now IMHO.
- yard2010 3y ago
  Now? Copyright law is broken for decades. My 2 cents that it's part of the whole government/technology lag, lawmakers are decades behind in terms of what they know, their whole perspective is skewed
- TekMol 3y ago
  hard to use the model without reproducing (copying) it Can you link to a source that backs up this line of thought? It is not how I understand copyright law. AFAIK it is not about you making a copy for yourself. It is about person A copying content person B has the copyright to and then giving it to person C. That's why the license talks about "sharing". The way I understand it, what A does with their copy of the content does not fall under the copyright law.
  - dumpsterdiver 3y ago
    If at any point a person chooses to "share" the work of an artist with other people outside of the marketplace where the artist is selling their work, then those people are stealing. I really don't think it's that hard to discern fair use from theft. I also don't understand why so many people rush to defend stealing software just because "it's only numbers on a computer". Stolen software is not just a number on a computer. Quality software is very expensive to produce, and when people take that software without paying for I then that contributes to bad software being produced in the future, because the quality developers you want producing your software can no longer be afforded for your bullshit, because too many of you have no problem stealing from other people.

by TekMol 3y ago

mkl 3y ago

To get it onto your server you need to copy it (= reproduce it), and so you have to obey the license and not use that copy for commercial purposes. IANAL, but that seems kind of obvious.

TekMol 3y ago
If we follow this (obvious as you say) line of thought, can you read the code while at work? Isn't that a use of the copy (your browser made) for commercial purposes? I don't think this is what copyright is about. As far as I know, it is about sharing a copy with a third party. But I am happy to be corrected if someone has a link to a reputable source that says otherwise.
- mkl 3y ago
  Copyright law is about copying, full-stop. It doesn't matter if you are copying it for yourself, it's still a copy. That's why copyright laws in some jurisdictions had to be updated to allow temporary copies in RAM existing as part of use (e.g. USA [0]), or to allow format-shifting like putting a CD you own on an MP3 player (e.g. NZ [1]), and some attempts didn't get it right at first (e.g. USA [2]). [0] https://itlaw.fandom.com/wiki/Temporary_copies https://itlaw.fandom.com/wiki/Temporary_copies [1] https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/copyright-law https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/copyright-law [2] http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html
  - TekMol 3y ago
    So can you read the code while at work or not? I remain sceptical about the idea that you can't. Look at the license in question: https://github.com/facebookresearch/dinov2/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/dinov2/blob/main/LICENSE Not a single time it talks about the act of copying and/or using the software. It constantly talks about sharing it. The consumer.org.nz page you linked to also mainly focusses on "selling" the data itself and explicitely states that you can make copies for yourself: Can I download mp3s from the internet and copy them to CD? Sure – as long as they were obtained legitimately – either purchased from an online store or from a legal free download. As we said before, if you own the music legally then you can make a copy. This seems to underline my thinking that copyright is mostly about sharing with 3rd parties. Not about the act of duplicating bytes in a technical manner or about what you do with your copy of the bytes.
    - mkl 3y ago
      From the first section of the consumer.org.nz page (emphasis mine): "Can I make a copy of albums I own? Yes. A recent amendment to the Copyright Act means that you can copy music – in the Act as 'sound recordings' – you own for your own personal use.". No such amendment would be needed if copyright was about sharing. Same with the temporary copies in RAM. The license talks about "reproducing", which is copying. You seem to be basically saying that you think Meta's lawyers and Creative Commons's lawyers don't know how to do their jobs (and can be trivially out-thought in a couple of minutes by laypeople), which seems very unlikely.
      - TekMol 3y ago
        So can you read the code while at work or not?
        mkl 3y ago
        I don't know why you're so insistent on asking a non-lawyer for legal advice. The license says "NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation", so it depends on your reasons for reading the code (and it doesn't matter whether you do it at work or elsewhere).

riedel 3y ago

It will be hard to use the model without reproducing (copying) it. You may consider any output of the model derivative work and then it would apply. But that goes against the understanding that outputs of ML models are copyrightable. If however, someone runs the model for non-commercial purpose and you take the the output of the model and commercialize it... Copyright law is broken by now IMHO.

yard2010 3y ago
Now? Copyright law is broken for decades. My 2 cents that it's part of the whole government/technology lag, lawmakers are decades behind in terms of what they know, their whole perspective is skewed
TekMol 3y ago
hard to use the model without reproducing (copying) it Can you link to a source that backs up this line of thought? It is not how I understand copyright law. AFAIK it is not about you making a copy for yourself. It is about person A copying content person B has the copyright to and then giving it to person C. That's why the license talks about "sharing". The way I understand it, what A does with their copy of the content does not fall under the copyright law.
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago
  If at any point a person chooses to "share" the work of an artist with other people outside of the marketplace where the artist is selling their work, then those people are stealing. I really don't think it's that hard to discern fair use from theft. I also don't understand why so many people rush to defend stealing software just because "it's only numbers on a computer". Stolen software is not just a number on a computer. Quality software is very expensive to produce, and when people take that software without paying for I then that contributes to bad software being produced in the future, because the quality developers you want producing your software can no longer be afforded for your bullshit, because too many of you have no problem stealing from other people.