3 ms·

No. Making a single copy for your own use is still a copyright violation. There are exceptions (fair use, nomitive use etc) but just because people are rarely

No. Making a single copy for your own use is still a copyright violation. There are exceptions (fair use, nomitive use etc) but just because people are rarely sued for personal copying doesnt equate to that copying being permitted. And trademark issues, such as the other commenter generating the superman logo, are subject to a host of other rules.

vosper 3y ago
> No. Making a single copy for your own use is still a copyright violation. In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not in all of them. There isn't one set of universal copyright law in the world. Eg in New Zealand you are allowed to make a single copy of any sound recording for your own personal use, per device that you will play the sound recording on. I'm sure there are other examples in other countries. https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/copyright-law https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/copyright-law
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  This is the same in the UK (and not only for sound). If you own the copy, you can make personal copies. You can't share them, and you have to own the original.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Training a model isn’t making a copy for your own use, it’s not making a copy at all. It’s converting the original media into a statistical aggregate combined with a lot of other stuff. There’s no copy of the original, even if it’s able to produce a similar product to the original. That’s the specific thing - the aggregation and the lack of direct reproduction in any form is fundamentally not reproducing or copying the material. The fact it can be induced to produce copyright material, as you can induce a Xerox to reproduce copyright material, doesn’t make the original model or its training a violation of copyright. If it’s sole purpose was reproduction and distribution of the material or if it carried a copy of the original around and produced it on demand, that would be a different story. But it’s not doing any of that, not even remotely. All this said, it’s a highly dynamic area - it depends on the local law, the media and medium, and the question hasn’t been fully explored. I’m wagering though when it comes down to it, the model isn’t violating copyright for these reasons, but you can certainly violate copyrights using a model.
- jpollock 3y ago
  Copying into RAM during training is making a copy, and can be a copyright violation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp.... However, it seems that there is a later case in the 2nd circuit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Holdings,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Hol....
  - koboll 3y ago
    The difference is that the copy is authorized, unless the work is being pirated. When an artist displays their work on DeviantArt or Artstation or whatever, they are allowing the general public to load it into memory. It's part of the license agreement they sign when they sign up for these services.
    - jpollock 3y ago
      The copy isn't authorized, the copy is allowed under Fair Use. There's a huge difference between the two.
      - koboll 3y ago
        Wrong. Fair Use applies to instances that would otherwise be copyright violations, i.e. unauthorized distribution. When you sign up for a social media site you EXPLICITLY grant the site the rights to distribute it. You have expressly permitted it. It's a big difference!
  - nearbuy 3y ago
    The sources used for training these AIs are publicly available sources like Common Crawl. If having a copy in RAM is a copyright violation, then there are copyright violations occurring well before any AI ever sees it.
    - emkoemko 3y ago

vosper 3y ago

> No. Making a single copy for your own use is still a copyright violation. In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not in all of them. There isn't one set of universal copyright law in the world. Eg in New Zealand you are allowed to make a single copy of any sound recording for your own personal use, per device that you will play the sound recording on. I'm sure there are other examples in other countries. https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/copyright-law https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/copyright-law

adhesive_wombat 3y ago
This is the same in the UK (and not only for sound). If you own the copy, you can make personal copies. You can't share them, and you have to own the original.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Training a model isn’t making a copy for your own use, it’s not making a copy at all. It’s converting the original media into a statistical aggregate combined with a lot of other stuff. There’s no copy of the original, even if it’s able to produce a similar product to the original. That’s the specific thing - the aggregation and the lack of direct reproduction in any form is fundamentally not reproducing or copying the material. The fact it can be induced to produce copyright material, as you can induce a Xerox to reproduce copyright material, doesn’t make the original model or its training a violation of copyright. If it’s sole purpose was reproduction and distribution of the material or if it carried a copy of the original around and produced it on demand, that would be a different story. But it’s not doing any of that, not even remotely. All this said, it’s a highly dynamic area - it depends on the local law, the media and medium, and the question hasn’t been fully explored. I’m wagering though when it comes down to it, the model isn’t violating copyright for these reasons, but you can certainly violate copyrights using a model.

jpollock 3y ago
Copying into RAM during training is making a copy, and can be a copyright violation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp.... However, it seems that there is a later case in the 2nd circuit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Holdings,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Hol....
- koboll 3y ago
  The difference is that the copy is authorized, unless the work is being pirated. When an artist displays their work on DeviantArt or Artstation or whatever, they are allowing the general public to load it into memory. It's part of the license agreement they sign when they sign up for these services.
  - jpollock 3y ago
    The copy isn't authorized, the copy is allowed under Fair Use. There's a huge difference between the two.
    - koboll 3y ago
      Wrong. Fair Use applies to instances that would otherwise be copyright violations, i.e. unauthorized distribution. When you sign up for a social media site you EXPLICITLY grant the site the rights to distribute it. You have expressly permitted it. It's a big difference!
- nearbuy 3y ago
  The sources used for training these AIs are publicly available sources like Common Crawl. If having a copy in RAM is a copyright violation, then there are copyright violations occurring well before any AI ever sees it.
  - emkoemko 3y ago