4 ms·

Gary Marcus is growing his subscriber base using images of copyrighted IP (C3PO, Mario, etc.). Fair use? Then why is the tool he used to produce those materials

Gary Marcus is growing his subscriber base using images of copyrighted IP (C3PO, Mario, etc.). Fair use? Then why is the tool he used to produce those materials not also fair use of the IP? My take is that either we say the models are like people (do we penalize people for learning from IP and letting that influence what they subsequently produce?) or we say they are like tools (do we penalize Adobe because Photoshop makes it easier to make a picture of Mario on the Death Star?).

cogman10 3y ago
Because the fair use clause he's using is about giving commentary. The reason the tool is problematic is because derivative works are also copyrighted. LLMs aren't adding value to their output or using creative functionality. That are smashing multiple works together to produce a response. And, many of them are selling the output which is doubly problematic. Consider this, if I sell a book about gandolf and Dumbledore getting into a wizards duel, both jk and Tolkien have grounds sue me. Adding another copyrighted source does not protect me. This is especially a big problem in the music industry. Now should copyrights be like this? I don't know. It feels to me that copyrights have the wrong balance all over the place.
- josh-sematic 3y ago
  But does the word processor you used to write your Dumbledore/Gandalf fanfic hold liability for being sued because it enabled your misuse? Then neither should Dall-E hold liability because it enabled you to produce an illustration for that book. It is you—the person who tries to sell your derivative work, who holds liability, and not the tools you used to produce it.
  - noitpmeder 3y ago
    Yes because openAI explicitly reassigns the rights of the output to the user. They do not have legal grounds to claim ownership of those rights and thus CANNOT reassign them.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    LLMs aren't word processors. If I went around, recorded broadway shows, and then sold them to anyone that wants them. You'd agree that's violating copyright. Even if I mixed them or made my own remix, that's still a copyright violation. Regardless of what the purchaser does with the material, I'm violating copyright because I'm selling derivative works. The only thing LLMs do is create derivative works. It doesn't matter that you can prompt them to put their own spin on derivatives just like it wouldn't matter if I took requests with my bootleg mixing company (I'm just a tool of piracy! I have no control if you decide to sell the works after I sold it to you). I'll also point out, OpenAI is extra on thin ice because it's not infeasible that someone like the NY Times wouldn't make their own LLM based on their material and sell the output to subscribers. That's a real harm. Fanfic doesn't often get prosecuted because nobody is sell it so harm is hard to prove. But when you have a business built around selling these derivative works, that's the issue.

cogman10 3y ago

Because the fair use clause he's using is about giving commentary. The reason the tool is problematic is because derivative works are also copyrighted. LLMs aren't adding value to their output or using creative functionality. That are smashing multiple works together to produce a response. And, many of them are selling the output which is doubly problematic. Consider this, if I sell a book about gandolf and Dumbledore getting into a wizards duel, both jk and Tolkien have grounds sue me. Adding another copyrighted source does not protect me. This is especially a big problem in the music industry. Now should copyrights be like this? I don't know. It feels to me that copyrights have the wrong balance all over the place.

josh-sematic 3y ago
But does the word processor you used to write your Dumbledore/Gandalf fanfic hold liability for being sued because it enabled your misuse? Then neither should Dall-E hold liability because it enabled you to produce an illustration for that book. It is you—the person who tries to sell your derivative work, who holds liability, and not the tools you used to produce it.
- noitpmeder 3y ago
  Yes because openAI explicitly reassigns the rights of the output to the user. They do not have legal grounds to claim ownership of those rights and thus CANNOT reassign them.
- cogman10 3y ago
  LLMs aren't word processors. If I went around, recorded broadway shows, and then sold them to anyone that wants them. You'd agree that's violating copyright. Even if I mixed them or made my own remix, that's still a copyright violation. Regardless of what the purchaser does with the material, I'm violating copyright because I'm selling derivative works. The only thing LLMs do is create derivative works. It doesn't matter that you can prompt them to put their own spin on derivatives just like it wouldn't matter if I took requests with my bootleg mixing company (I'm just a tool of piracy! I have no control if you decide to sell the works after I sold it to you). I'll also point out, OpenAI is extra on thin ice because it's not infeasible that someone like the NY Times wouldn't make their own LLM based on their material and sell the output to subscribers. That's a real harm. Fanfic doesn't often get prosecuted because nobody is sell it so harm is hard to prove. But when you have a business built around selling these derivative works, that's the issue.