That isn't necessarily true. You're saying that the model weights would be a derivative work. Derivative work is insufficiently transformative to fully distingu

That isn't necessarily true. You're saying that the model weights would be a derivative work. Derivative work is insufficiently transformative to fully distinguish the output from the input. In this instance, it's very likely that the process is sufficiently transformative. A set of model weights look nothing like the Mona Lisa, nor can they be directly transformed back into it. What it is NOT is the product of a creative process on the part of a human, and is thus ineligible for copyright. It is as though we are able to distill meaning using an automatic process. Copyright doesn't protect meaning, only expression, and it only protects expressions that were generated by humans. The network itself might be patentable if it isn't obvious. If a network was copyrighted and it was found that the function of the network was inseparable from its expression, it would no longer be eligible for copyright on that basis. I think people often misunderstand the application of copyright to GPL code in this way. Now, will any of this stop people from CLAIMING copyright? No. It'll have to be fought out in courts.