4 ms·
You’re making a few claims implicitly here: - the copyright status of the output of LLMs is ambiguous - this ambiguity represents a legal risk to the users of
by AbrahamParangi 3y ago
You’re making a few claims implicitly here:
- the copyright status of the output of LLMs is ambiguous
- this ambiguity represents a legal risk to the users of LLMs
- given that ambiguity, nobody should use LLMs for work that is intended to be copyrighted
It’s not clear to me if any of these are true individually, never mind all together.
Maybe the copyright status is ambiguous but I think the probability that the output of LLMs is owned by anyone other than API caller is very low. You can copyright works, but you can’t copyright the ideas within those works.
Possibly this represents a liability issue but I think the probability of that is vanishingly small. Just because a legal theory exists doesn’t mean it’s going to be enforceable - one of the reasons for the existence of Uber, youtube, etc. if it’s a fait-accompli it’s not a risk.
Finally, it representing a risk of copyright liability is still just a business decision. I would guess that existing software projects are riddled with code snippets of ambiguous or incompatible licenses. All it takes is one person to copy a function that is GPL and label it otherwise and then it’s out in the world, technically running amok. It is probable that under the strictest definitions, every software company is engaging in some low level of copyright infringement. All-in, this means that while it’s a risk, it’s a risk you’re probably already taking and so you might reasonably conclude to ignore.
- hobs 3y agoAt least the first two are true if you are a lawyer, as every lawyer I know is waiting for AI legislation to make the two first points clear. Any lawyer will tell you if the first two points are unclear the third point is rock solid - don't use tools that have ambiguous copyright terms until AFTER the big legal fallout/legislation unless you are willing to bet the entire farm.
- sigotirandolas 3y agoFrom my non-lawyer "common sense" point of view, the reasoning that 1 and 2 implies 3 seems absurd in the face of the "no penalty without law" principle. If the law is so unclear that lawyers can't determine legality and are waiting for additional guidance from the lawmakers, shouldn't it be legal by default?
- tonnydourado 3y agoThe risk is not "being punished under a new law for things your business did before the law existed". The risk is "there's a new law that made your whole business model illegal, now what?"
- sigotirandolas 3y agoWell, I guess that's also a risk - that a future law forces you to stop selling your software until you remove all AI-generated code. A law like this seems pretty much impossible to enforce, though. Even if it turns out that GPT is just parroting remixes of GPL code, all examples of generated code I've seen are fully indistinguishable from code someone may have come up on their own - with the exception of contrived cases where someone is actively trying to get it to output a particular fragment of code verbatim.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoIt's perfectly possible to have a new untested act judged illegal under existing laws, but only after performing the questionable act, and it being examined and judged. My common sense says that without a tiny bit of doubt, copilot is utterly outlaw so far, essentially stealing gpl code where the only price was credit. It probably has several other problems but that is one that anyone can see. I don't mean everyone agrees, I mean the information needed to make the judgement is all present to all observers without needing to see the code or the training process or be a lawyer. There are countless examples of regurgitated gpl code, with no credit. End of search. It's inexcusable because it would have been almost zero burden to get everyone's consent to be included in a collective credit. They didn't even do that. So, whether or not this assertion of mine ever amounts to anything, it's a simple example of something being illegal all along, but maybe you don't know it until after you do it, and it gets examined and judged, and the judgement goes the way that burns you. It doesn't require any new law.
- nprateem 3y agoOr you start a limited liability company, win the market from all the people who are terrified of maybes and worst case your liability is limited to company assets.
- bsenftner 3y agoThis period if legal ambiguity is the period when gold (meaning significant wealth) is spun from pressing the legal margins. Remember Napster, an illegal from the get-go startup? Yet one of it's founder, Sean Parker, is one of the Internet Goldenboys with the c-suites, legal, drug and celebrity problems only crazy wealth can afford. It's not an easy path, but right now is when the first movers are starting to sprint...
- pdntspa 3y agoLast I heard the output of an AI was uncopyrightable. Didn't some court case determine that?
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoI suspect the raw output of an LLM will not be considered copyrightable but the composition of those raw outputs into a coherent work is likely protected.
- zacmps 3y agoWhat a mind-bogglingly stupid decision if so, I can just train a network on the identity function and get royalty free mickey mouse now?
- pdntspa 3y agoIt's court precedent, so a loophole like that probably won't work