4 ms·

I'm not understanding how it's different. For example, if I specifically set out to make money by creating and selling a parody of Harry Potter by reading all t

I'm not understanding how it's different. For example, if I specifically set out to make money by creating and selling a parody of Harry Potter by reading all the Harry Potter books a bunch of times, does that make my parody a violation of the spirit of existing copyright law? Edit to add another example because someone is going to say that parody is its own thing and exempted. If I want to make money by writing a film in the same way Tarantino does I go and read all his screenplays to understand his style, pacing, character archetypes, etc. Should that also not be ok?

everly 3y ago
No, because parody is a specifically protected category under the law [0]. But, as with many things, the legality would ultimately depend on the nuances of the implementation. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/parody https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/parody
evdubs 3y ago
Did you, through copyright infringement, acquire your copies of Harry Potter? Did you use Harry Potter source material and a machine to transform the input and produce your parody material? I think it's different if OpenAI acquires licenses for all of the material it uses for training.
- mdorazio 3y ago
  I sure didn't buy a license for every book and screenplay I've ever read. And I borrow a lot of books from the library. I'm not understanding why you think ML models need to license all of their input content when humans clearly do not.
  - evdubs 3y ago
    If you bought the books and screenplays, you acquired them in a way that doesn't infringe on copyright. If you borrowed them from the library, you acquired them in a way that doesn't infringe on copyright. You don't need a license because you aren't republishing. ML training doesn't work without having a copy of the data (books and screenplays). That data can either be copied in a non-infringing way (buy the books; acquire a license) or in an infringing way (download the books from a corpus without explicit permission like these AI companies are accused of doing). LLM services need a license just like Facebook, Instagram, etc. need a license to republish the stuff you post. The copyright holder maintains their copyright and the service that republishes their work (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) or publishes derivative works (AI) needs a license.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- candiodari 3y ago
  Doesn't matter. The only thing copyright regulates is the duplication and spreading of copyrighted material. If you acquire "unlicensed" copies and learn from them, you have not violated copyright, you are not violating the author's copyright.
  - evdubs 3y ago
    You seem to be arguing that downloading copyrighted material without permission is not copyright infringement. "Acquire 'unlicensed' copies" is exactly downloading without permission. You are making a copy, thus infringing on the author's copyright.
everly 3y ago
Surely you must understand the difference between copying something and producing something entirely new. If you literally only consumed Tarantino media and had no other influences, and then one day made a movie so great everyone was calling you the next Tarantino - that would be fine! As long as you didn't copy anything that he actually made himself. Being influenced by is not the same as copying.
- ClassyJacket 3y ago
  But the whole point is that copying is not what's happening.
  - everly 3y ago
    Copyrighted content was not _copied_ into the training corpus?
- ada1981 3y ago
  Of course Tarantino copied a ton for his films…
- mdorazio 3y ago
  I'm still not understanding your argument here. If a ML model spits out snippets of copyrighted material and you try to monetize those then that's clearly infringement. But if it ingests copyrighted material and then spits out entirely new content influenced by the originals... how is that an issue?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > If a ML model spits out snippets of copyrighted material and you try to monetize those then that’s clearly infringement. If it spits it out because it was in the training set or prompt, yes. If it spits it out and it was in the training set (or prompt), it is at least difficult to make the case that it is not infringement (if it was the prompt, then you basically have the same problem as any other case where you are proving that production of something that matches something someone else has a copyright on was independent, since copyright only protects against copying, not coincidence.) If it spits it out but it was not in the training set or prompt then clearly it was not infringement. > But if it ingests copyrighted material and then spits out entirely new content influenced by the originals… how is that an issue? Because a non-perfect mechanical copy is still a copy violating copyright if there is no license, and a derivative work produced by a human using AI as a tool is still an infringing derivative work if there is no license. While copyright protects against perfect copies, it protects against imperfect copies and derivative works as well. (Except where exceptions like Fair Use apply.)

everly 3y ago

No, because parody is a specifically protected category under the law [0]. But, as with many things, the legality would ultimately depend on the nuances of the implementation. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/parody https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/parody

evdubs 3y ago

Did you, through copyright infringement, acquire your copies of Harry Potter? Did you use Harry Potter source material and a machine to transform the input and produce your parody material? I think it's different if OpenAI acquires licenses for all of the material it uses for training.

mdorazio 3y ago
I sure didn't buy a license for every book and screenplay I've ever read. And I borrow a lot of books from the library. I'm not understanding why you think ML models need to license all of their input content when humans clearly do not.
- evdubs 3y ago
  If you bought the books and screenplays, you acquired them in a way that doesn't infringe on copyright. If you borrowed them from the library, you acquired them in a way that doesn't infringe on copyright. You don't need a license because you aren't republishing. ML training doesn't work without having a copy of the data (books and screenplays). That data can either be copied in a non-infringing way (buy the books; acquire a license) or in an infringing way (download the books from a corpus without explicit permission like these AI companies are accused of doing). LLM services need a license just like Facebook, Instagram, etc. need a license to republish the stuff you post. The copyright holder maintains their copyright and the service that republishes their work (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) or publishes derivative works (AI) needs a license.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
candiodari 3y ago
Doesn't matter. The only thing copyright regulates is the duplication and spreading of copyrighted material. If you acquire "unlicensed" copies and learn from them, you have not violated copyright, you are not violating the author's copyright.
- evdubs 3y ago
  You seem to be arguing that downloading copyrighted material without permission is not copyright infringement. "Acquire 'unlicensed' copies" is exactly downloading without permission. You are making a copy, thus infringing on the author's copyright.

everly 3y ago

Surely you must understand the difference between copying something and producing something entirely new. If you literally only consumed Tarantino media and had no other influences, and then one day made a movie so great everyone was calling you the next Tarantino - that would be fine! As long as you didn't copy anything that he actually made himself. Being influenced by is not the same as copying.

ClassyJacket 3y ago
But the whole point is that copying is not what's happening.
- everly 3y ago
  Copyrighted content was not _copied_ into the training corpus?
ada1981 3y ago
Of course Tarantino copied a ton for his films…
mdorazio 3y ago
I'm still not understanding your argument here. If a ML model spits out snippets of copyrighted material and you try to monetize those then that's clearly infringement. But if it ingests copyrighted material and then spits out entirely new content influenced by the originals... how is that an issue?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > If a ML model spits out snippets of copyrighted material and you try to monetize those then that’s clearly infringement. If it spits it out because it was in the training set or prompt, yes. If it spits it out and it was in the training set (or prompt), it is at least difficult to make the case that it is not infringement (if it was the prompt, then you basically have the same problem as any other case where you are proving that production of something that matches something someone else has a copyright on was independent, since copyright only protects against copying, not coincidence.) If it spits it out but it was not in the training set or prompt then clearly it was not infringement. > But if it ingests copyrighted material and then spits out entirely new content influenced by the originals… how is that an issue? Because a non-perfect mechanical copy is still a copy violating copyright if there is no license, and a derivative work produced by a human using AI as a tool is still an infringing derivative work if there is no license. While copyright protects against perfect copies, it protects against imperfect copies and derivative works as well. (Except where exceptions like Fair Use apply.)