5 ms·

Should not be a problem in the EU. Article 3 and 4 of the „ Copyright in the Digital Single Market“ Directive already regulate this. Summary by Wolters Kluwer:

Should not be a problem in the EU. Article 3 and 4 of the „ Copyright in the Digital Single Market“ Directive already regulate this. Summary by Wolters Kluwer: […] Everyone else (including commercial ML developers) can only use works that are lawfully accessible and where the rightholders have not explicitly reserved use for text and data mining purposes. AFAIK they are discussing something like a robot.txt to flag stuff as „not for training“. You will probably be expected to implement some safeguards and of course the end user will have to be careful in his use of the generated things. Source at Kluwers: https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/02/20/protecting-creatives-or-impeding-progress-machine-learning-and-the-eu-copyright-framework/#:~:text=Taken%20together%2C%20these%20two%20articles,public%20Internet)%20to%20train%20ML https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/02/20/protecting-... EU Legal Text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj

injidup 3y ago
The EU cannot agree that the Do Not Track flag on web browsers is legally binding but big content should be able to create legally binding flags on their websites to avoid scraping of data? Seems odd!
- Nebasuke 3y ago
  I don't think that's a fair analogy. One forces 99% of websites to make a change, while the other is something that would need to be done by the big companies doing the scraping. A Do Not Track flag being legally binding would force small websites, e.g. a local restaurant website, to implement something they likely are not aware of and secondly do not technically understand. A company that is mass scraping data for their AI model is much more likely to understand and respect that scraping the data has legal implications, and would be technically capable in implementing a scraping solutions that accounts for a robots.txt.
  - f38zf5vdt 3y ago
    The X-Robots-Tags header already exists as "noai" and "noimageai". Scraping software like img2dataset respects these by default.
  - cma 3y ago
    I'm gonna guess it often isn't even their content but is user content they are protecting. So, sounds like a big subsidy/protection racket for Twitter or whatever to train on their users' public content but not let others.
  - Too 3y ago
    If I understand parent correctly, the restriction flag is opt-in? This turns copyright around completely, expecting every small content producer to implement something they likely are not aware of and secondly do not technically understand.
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      At very least robots.txt is from 1994; it has been part of the web almost from the start (web became public in 1991, so within 3 years). Claiming ignorance here would be just a little bit disingenuous.
sampo 3y ago
> Summary by Wolters Kluwer: […] Everyone else (including commercial ML developers) can only use That is a weird (wishful?) interpretation. Doesn't article 4 give the exception to everybody for the purposes of text and data mining, including commercial ML developers? https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj
- shkkmo 3y ago
  Seems like an accurate interpretation to me given that article 4 includes: > The exception or limitation provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply on condition that the use of works and other subject matter referred to in that paragraph has not been expressly reserved by their rightholders in an appropriate manner, such as machine-readable means in the case of content made publicly available online.

injidup 3y ago

The EU cannot agree that the Do Not Track flag on web browsers is legally binding but big content should be able to create legally binding flags on their websites to avoid scraping of data? Seems odd!

Nebasuke 3y ago
I don't think that's a fair analogy. One forces 99% of websites to make a change, while the other is something that would need to be done by the big companies doing the scraping. A Do Not Track flag being legally binding would force small websites, e.g. a local restaurant website, to implement something they likely are not aware of and secondly do not technically understand. A company that is mass scraping data for their AI model is much more likely to understand and respect that scraping the data has legal implications, and would be technically capable in implementing a scraping solutions that accounts for a robots.txt.
- f38zf5vdt 3y ago
  The X-Robots-Tags header already exists as "noai" and "noimageai". Scraping software like img2dataset respects these by default.
- cma 3y ago
  I'm gonna guess it often isn't even their content but is user content they are protecting. So, sounds like a big subsidy/protection racket for Twitter or whatever to train on their users' public content but not let others.
- Too 3y ago
  If I understand parent correctly, the restriction flag is opt-in? This turns copyright around completely, expecting every small content producer to implement something they likely are not aware of and secondly do not technically understand.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    At very least robots.txt is from 1994; it has been part of the web almost from the start (web became public in 1991, so within 3 years). Claiming ignorance here would be just a little bit disingenuous.

sampo 3y ago

> Summary by Wolters Kluwer: […] Everyone else (including commercial ML developers) can only use That is a weird (wishful?) interpretation. Doesn't article 4 give the exception to everybody for the purposes of text and data mining, including commercial ML developers? https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj

shkkmo 3y ago
Seems like an accurate interpretation to me given that article 4 includes: > The exception or limitation provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply on condition that the use of works and other subject matter referred to in that paragraph has not been expressly reserved by their rightholders in an appropriate manner, such as machine-readable means in the case of content made publicly available online.