5 ms·
Generally the output of a machine is not copyrightable. Similarly, the contents of a phone book is not copyrightable in the US even if the formatting/layout is.
by sebzim4500 3y ago
Generally the output of a machine is not copyrightable. Similarly, the contents of a phone book is not copyrightable in the US even if the formatting/layout is. So I could take a phonebook and publish another one with identical phone numbers as long as I laid it out slightly differently.
- cal85 3y agoWhat about compiled binaries? If I write my own original source code (and thus automatically own the copyright to it), and compile it to binary, is the binary not protected to?
- sebzim4500 3y agoNo, because you the input to that process was a bunch of work that you did. In the case of an LLM, I don't think that the work of compiling the training data probably would qualify by analogy to the phonebook example.
- cal85 3y agoSure, but I was just responding to "Generally the output of a machine is not copyrightable", which seemed obviously wrong to me... But on reflection, you are totally right, I was just getting mixed up on the distinction between copies and the creative works themselves. Machine output of something is generally just a copy of something. Whatever it is a copy of may be a copyrightable work, and if so, whoever came up with that original work has the right to all the copies output by machines (or copies generated by hand-tracing, or whatever). Anyway, on LLMs... Even if we assume LLM weights are just copies (machine outputs) of whatever inputs they were trained on, then I assume I would automatically own the exclusive right to restrict the distribution of weights of a 'Me' chatbot trained exclusively on my own writings. But what if someone else comes along and writes a load of bespoke code specifically to generate improved weights for this same model, so the resultant chatbot works much better in conversation (still with my tone of voice, but with better performance and better interpretation of questions)? Is that programmer not adding some creative value, such that we might both have a right to restrict distribution of those improved weights? (NB. it's common for an item to be a 'copy' of multiple original works, e.g. copies of Jimi Hendrix's cover of Bob Dylan's 'All Along the Watchtower'.)
- humanistbot 3y agoBy that logic, if you convert a copyrighted song or movie from one codec to another, then that would not be copyrightable because it is the output of a machine.
- xxpor 3y agoThe song itself isn't output by the machine.
- humanistbot 3y agoNeither was the original training data, which was copyrighted books, art, etc.
- xxpor 3y agoThe output of the training though is unrecognizable.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoSometimes, the output is a recognisable plagiarism of a specific input. If it isn't recognisable, then it's merely _distributed_ plagiarism. A million output, each of which are 0.0001% plagiarising each of million inputs.
- xxpor 3y agoDoes The War on Drugs plagiarize Bruce Springsteen?
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoDoes The War on Drugs produce outputs on command, to prompts such as "a song in the style of Bruce Springsteen" ? Is The War on Drugs a VC-funded band replacement? Are other future bands going to learn from The War on Drugs? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai-stable-diffusion-stability-ai-lawsuit-artists-sue-image-generators/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai-stable-diffusion-stability-a... https://www.documentjournal.com/2023/05/ai-art-generators-molly-crabapple-open-letter-copyright-law-stability-ai-midjourney-dall-e https://www.documentjournal.com/2023/05/ai-art-generators-mo...
- xxpor 3y agoWork also has to be "creative" in order for it to be eligible for copyright. This is why photomasks have special, explicit protection in US law; they're not really "creative" in that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_design_protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_desi...