8 ms·

No, a document's contents aren't inherently copyrightable. They have to be a creative work or a method of production, and part of that basically means it has to

No, a document's contents aren't inherently copyrightable. They have to be a creative work or a method of production, and part of that basically means it has to be human generated content (as opposed to computer or animal generated). AI weights might be considered a method of production, but that isn't clear yet.

throwaway98721 3y ago
[flagged]
- ketzu 3y ago
  > Was there no work put into their creation by someone? Putting work into something is not a sufficient cirteria for copyright. > All of it is just a stream of bytes that the computer can interpret somehow This is also not a sufficient or at all relevant cirteria for assigning copyright. Also, in the sense you presented, those files are not fundamentally different from random noise. Which is not a particularly useful reduction for this exercise.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Was there no work put into their creation by someone? This is the “sweat of the brow” theory of copyrightability, which courts have rejected (for good reason based on the statute.) “Someone did work to enable this thing to exist” is not sufficient to make a thing copyright-protected. > There's no fundamental difference between an image, code, or weights. And neither images, code, nor weights that are mechanically produced with no creative input by a particular author are subject to copyright in their own right (depending on their relation to the source material on which the mechanical process rests, they may be covered by the copyright on the source material.) The best argument for weights being copyrightable (and it probably applies better to some models than others) is that the assembly of source material is a creative work subject to a compilers copyright, and that the model weights themselves are just a mechanical translation of that compilation subject to its copyright.

throwaway98721 3y ago

[flagged]

ketzu 3y ago
> Was there no work put into their creation by someone? Putting work into something is not a sufficient cirteria for copyright. > All of it is just a stream of bytes that the computer can interpret somehow This is also not a sufficient or at all relevant cirteria for assigning copyright. Also, in the sense you presented, those files are not fundamentally different from random noise. Which is not a particularly useful reduction for this exercise.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Was there no work put into their creation by someone? This is the “sweat of the brow” theory of copyrightability, which courts have rejected (for good reason based on the statute.) “Someone did work to enable this thing to exist” is not sufficient to make a thing copyright-protected. > There's no fundamental difference between an image, code, or weights. And neither images, code, nor weights that are mechanically produced with no creative input by a particular author are subject to copyright in their own right (depending on their relation to the source material on which the mechanical process rests, they may be covered by the copyright on the source material.) The best argument for weights being copyrightable (and it probably applies better to some models than others) is that the assembly of source material is a creative work subject to a compilers copyright, and that the model weights themselves are just a mechanical translation of that compilation subject to its copyright.