4 ms·
If AI companies get to successfully argue the two points below, what source was used becomes irrelevant. - copyright violation happened before the intervention
by makeitdouble 3y ago
If AI companies get to successfully argue the two points below, what source was used becomes irrelevant.
- copyright violation happened before the intervention of the bot
- what LLMs spit out is different enough from any of the source that it is not infringing on existing copyright
If both stand, I'd compare it to you going to an auction site and studying all the published items as an observer, coming up with your research result, to then be sued because some of the items were stolen. Going after the theaves make sense, does going after the entity that just looked at the stolen goods make sense ?
- pessimizer 3y ago> - copyright violation happened before the intervention of the bot What is this supposed to mean? The bot didn't "intervene," it was executed by its operators, and it was trained on illicit material obtained by its operators. The LLM isn't on trial. It's not a person.
- makeitdouble 3y agoI see it as the same argument as whether Google is under the hook for its crawler going through the copyright infringing sites and having an index of the content, even if it isn't surfaced (redistributed) in the user search results.
- bobbylarrybobby 3y agoI'd argue that if an automated process can ingest A and spit out B, then B is inherently a derivative work of A. (Never mind that humans are also automata.)