4 ms·

That kind of information is present in fan fiction, Wikipedia, reviews. Plenty of other sources. You're also incredibly wrong on being able to assume a book is

That kind of information is present in fan fiction, Wikipedia, reviews. Plenty of other sources. You're also incredibly wrong on being able to assume a book is present in the dataset. It is up to the complainant to prove the case, you are not guilty because you didn't keep sufficient records.

Retric 3y ago
Copyright is like a shit sandwich, just those two words alone prove it’s a derivative work. This is true even if you copied from a copy. Once something is demonstrated as a derivative work, proving your use is fair use is now on the person who created it. That’s normally fairly easy with a book, but harder with LLM’s if they easily spit out large chunks of a clearly copied work. Remember lawsuits aren’t beyond a reasonable doubt the standard is much lower.
- diogenes4 3y ago
  Surely this opens a door where, because an agent is unlikely to reproduce work verbatim but rather in a more compressed or decompressed wording, humans are held to a different standard? Otherwise humans would remain an effective way to launder the output of the agent.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Copyright still applies if you’re copying elements of the story, it’s just harder to detect and less obvious in court. The value of names to copyright holders is simply how distinct they are. John Smith isn’t particularly unusual but if you name a bounty hunter Boba Fett it’s hard to argue originality. Complete originality isn’t required as long as you’re safely inside a fair use exception, but overwhelming originality is required. So it’s generally safer for a character to talk about their favorite parts of Star Wars than have your stories plot be a group of rebels trying to destroy a planet killing doomsday weapon guarded by a sword wielding space wizards.
    - diogenes4 3y ago
      > Copyright still applies if you’re copying elements of the story My point is that the meaning of "copying" as described here is unclear unclear if it's not restricted to verbatim plagiarism. As is "elements", for that matter.
- TrueDuality 3y ago
  Using those two words though is still fair use. And even activities such as producing fan fiction in the world of something like Harry Potter is also protected fair use. To infringe on copyright the complainant still has to PROVE that there was a copyright violation. Without details of what specific data a language model was trained on, there is no way to differentiate it having retrieved that name from a review of the book that was used with permission from the author (which is their own copyright and fair use on its own) or from the books itself (which would be copyright infringement). If those records don't exist, the only mechanism you have left is to try and get the language model to spit out sufficient verbatim text from the source material to cross the fair use threshold. This doesn't work in the case of "obvious extrapolation" either which is a whole other defense that could be used depending on what that body produced was (If knowing only that the main character is named Harry, who is a wizard going to a wizarding school in the British countryside is required to produce a couple of close looking paragraphs, you need a much closer match with the original text over those two paragraphs for it to be infringing).

Retric 3y ago

Copyright is like a shit sandwich, just those two words alone prove it’s a derivative work. This is true even if you copied from a copy. Once something is demonstrated as a derivative work, proving your use is fair use is now on the person who created it. That’s normally fairly easy with a book, but harder with LLM’s if they easily spit out large chunks of a clearly copied work. Remember lawsuits aren’t beyond a reasonable doubt the standard is much lower.

diogenes4 3y ago
Surely this opens a door where, because an agent is unlikely to reproduce work verbatim but rather in a more compressed or decompressed wording, humans are held to a different standard? Otherwise humans would remain an effective way to launder the output of the agent.
- Retric 3y ago
  Copyright still applies if you’re copying elements of the story, it’s just harder to detect and less obvious in court. The value of names to copyright holders is simply how distinct they are. John Smith isn’t particularly unusual but if you name a bounty hunter Boba Fett it’s hard to argue originality. Complete originality isn’t required as long as you’re safely inside a fair use exception, but overwhelming originality is required. So it’s generally safer for a character to talk about their favorite parts of Star Wars than have your stories plot be a group of rebels trying to destroy a planet killing doomsday weapon guarded by a sword wielding space wizards.
  - diogenes4 3y ago
    > Copyright still applies if you’re copying elements of the story My point is that the meaning of "copying" as described here is unclear unclear if it's not restricted to verbatim plagiarism. As is "elements", for that matter.
TrueDuality 3y ago
Using those two words though is still fair use. And even activities such as producing fan fiction in the world of something like Harry Potter is also protected fair use. To infringe on copyright the complainant still has to PROVE that there was a copyright violation. Without details of what specific data a language model was trained on, there is no way to differentiate it having retrieved that name from a review of the book that was used with permission from the author (which is their own copyright and fair use on its own) or from the books itself (which would be copyright infringement). If those records don't exist, the only mechanism you have left is to try and get the language model to spit out sufficient verbatim text from the source material to cross the fair use threshold. This doesn't work in the case of "obvious extrapolation" either which is a whole other defense that could be used depending on what that body produced was (If knowing only that the main character is named Harry, who is a wizard going to a wizarding school in the British countryside is required to produce a couple of close looking paragraphs, you need a much closer match with the original text over those two paragraphs for it to be infringing).