4 ms·

>ingesting items into an GPT is probably a copyright violation. Copyright violation is generally on the output side of things, not the input. It's not a copyr

by basch 3y ago

>ingesting items into an GPT is probably a copyright violation. Copyright violation is generally on the output side of things, not the input. It's not a copyright violation to watch a movie. I also would nit pick that a model is not BASED UPON a copywritten work, just because consuming the copywritten work changed the models parameters slightly. The model itself is not a derivative of any specific work. If one work represented over 50% of a model, it might be a different story. People are getting a little over focused on the word derivative and ignoring the rest of the sentence.

joshka 3y ago
> Copyright violation is generally on the output side of things, not the input. It's not a copyright violation to watch a movie. Copyright infringement is doing anything that violates a exclusive right of a copyright holder[1]. There are a bunch of exclusive rights one of which involves the output side. The Southern District of New York Federal court just sided with publishers against the Internet Archive specifically in deciding that scanning books was a copyright violation. [2]. Particularly of note is page 14 of the decision [3] --- > The Publishers have established a prima facie case of copyright infringement. First, the Publishers hold exclusive publishing rights in the Works in Suit pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 106, and the Works were timely registered with the Copyright Office. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶¶ 210-214. Second, IA copied the entire Works in Suit without the Publishers’ permission. See id. ¶¶ 242-245. Specifically, IA does not dispute that it violated the Publishers’ reproduction rights, by creating copies of the Works in Suit, 17 U.S.C. § 106(1); the Publishers’ rights to prepare derivative works, by “recasting” the Publishers’ print books into ebooks, id. § 106(2); the Publishers’ distribution rights, by distributing ebook copies of the Works in Suit to IA’s users, id. § 106(3); the Publishers’ public performance rights, through the “read aloud” function on IA’s Website, id. § 106(4); and the Publishers’ display rights, by showing the Works in Suit to users through IA’s in-browser viewer, id. § 106(5).5 --- The generation of the model literally requires a step which converts the source material into tokens. That step is infringing. It's no different to taking photocopies of a photo, or whipping my phone out during a movie at the theater to record. Whether it's infringing is not the issue. It is. It's whether the act is fair use that is the problem. I guess what you're trying to argue here is that using the resulting model is non-infringing. That's a whole 'nother thing I guess. --- [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive [3]: https://www.eff.org/files/2023/03/29/188_opinion.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2023/03/29/188_opinion.pdf
- basch 3y ago
  The internet archive case was about distributing the copies. The output side. Had they archived the books and not lent out unlimited copies, nothing would have come of the case.

by basch 3y ago

joshka 3y ago

> Copyright violation is generally on the output side of things, not the input. It's not a copyright violation to watch a movie. Copyright infringement is doing anything that violates a exclusive right of a copyright holder[1]. There are a bunch of exclusive rights one of which involves the output side. The Southern District of New York Federal court just sided with publishers against the Internet Archive specifically in deciding that scanning books was a copyright violation. [2]. Particularly of note is page 14 of the decision [3] --- > The Publishers have established a prima facie case of copyright infringement. First, the Publishers hold exclusive publishing rights in the Works in Suit pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 106, and the Works were timely registered with the Copyright Office. Pls.’ 56.1 ¶¶ 210-214. Second, IA copied the entire Works in Suit without the Publishers’ permission. See id. ¶¶ 242-245. Specifically, IA does not dispute that it violated the Publishers’ reproduction rights, by creating copies of the Works in Suit, 17 U.S.C. § 106(1); the Publishers’ rights to prepare derivative works, by “recasting” the Publishers’ print books into ebooks, id. § 106(2); the Publishers’ distribution rights, by distributing ebook copies of the Works in Suit to IA’s users, id. § 106(3); the Publishers’ public performance rights, through the “read aloud” function on IA’s Website, id. § 106(4); and the Publishers’ display rights, by showing the Works in Suit to users through IA’s in-browser viewer, id. § 106(5).5 --- The generation of the model literally requires a step which converts the source material into tokens. That step is infringing. It's no different to taking photocopies of a photo, or whipping my phone out during a movie at the theater to record. Whether it's infringing is not the issue. It is. It's whether the act is fair use that is the problem. I guess what you're trying to argue here is that using the resulting model is non-infringing. That's a whole 'nother thing I guess. --- [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive [3]: https://www.eff.org/files/2023/03/29/188_opinion.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2023/03/29/188_opinion.pdf

basch 3y ago
The internet archive case was about distributing the copies. The output side. Had they archived the books and not lent out unlimited copies, nothing would have come of the case.