4 ms·

It’s not so clear cut. Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. As much as people love to cite ChatGPT spitting o

It’s not so clear cut. Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. As much as people love to cite ChatGPT spitting out code that violates copyright, the vast majority of the outputs do not. Those that do, are quickly clamped down on — you’ll find it hard to get Dalle to generate an image of anything Nintendo related, unless you’re using crafty language. There’s also the moral question. Should creators have the right to prevent their bits from being copied at all? Fundamentally, people are upset that their work is being used. But "used" in this case means "copied, then transformed." There’s precedent for such copying and transformation. Fair use is only one example. You’re allowed to buy someone’s book and tear it up; that copy is yours. You can also download an image and turn it into a meme. That’s something that isn’t banned either. The question hinges on whether ML is quantitatively different, not qualitatively different. Scale matters, and it’s a difference of opinion whether the scale in this case is enough to justify banning people from training on art and source code. The courts’ opinion will have the final say. The thing is, I basically agree with you in terms of what you want to happen. Unfortunately the most likely outcome is a world where no one except billion dollar corporations can afford to pay the fees to create useful ML models. Are you sure it’s a good outcome? The chance that OpenAI will die from lawsuits seems close to nil. Open source AI, on the other hand, will be the first on the chopping block.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
>Those that do, are quickly clamped down on — you’ll find it hard to get Dalle to generate an image of anything Nintendo related, unless you’re using crafty language. really it seems more like someone was afraid of angering Nintendo who is a corporate adversary one does not like to fight and thus it has a bunch of blocks to keep from generating anything that offends Nintendo, that does not really translate to quickly and easily stopping and blocking offending generations across every copyrighted work in the world.
raphman 3y ago
> Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. What I don't understand (as a European with little knowledge of court decisions on fair use): with the same reasoning you might make software piracy a case of 'fair use', no? You take stuff someone else wrote - without their consent - and use it to create something new. The output (e.g. the artwork you create with Photoshop) is definitely not copyrighted by the manufacturer of the software. But in the case of software piracy, it is not about the output. With software, it seems clear that the act of taking something you do not have the rights for and using it for personal (financial) gain is not covered by fair use. Why can OpenAI steal copyrighted content to create transformative works but I cannot steal Photoshop to create transformative works? What am I missing?
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  > make software piracy a case of 'fair use' That's not a good example. Making a copy of a record you own(as an example ripping a audio CD to MP3) is absolutely fair use. Giving your video game to your neighbor to play - that's also fair use. Fair use is limited when it comes to transformative/derivative work. Similar laws are in place all over the world, just in US some of those come from case law. > With software, it seems clear that the act of taking something you do not have the rights for and using it for personal (financial) gain is not covered by fair use. > Why can OpenAI steal copyrighted content to create transformative works but I cannot steal Photoshop to create transformative works? That's not a good analogy. The argument, that is not settled yet, is that a model doesn't contain enough copyrightable material to produce an infringing output. Take your software example - you legally acquire Civ6, you play Civ6, you learn the concepts and the visuals of Civ6... then you take that knowledge and create a game that is similar to Civ6. If you're a copyright maximalist - then you would say that creating any games that mimic Civ6 by people who have played Civ6 is copyright infringement. Legally there are definitely lower limits to copyright - like no one owns the copyright to the phrase "Once upon a time", but there may be a copyright on "In a galaxy far far away".
- Ukv 3y ago
  > Why can OpenAI steal copyrighted content to create transformative works but I cannot steal Photoshop to create transformative works? What am I missing? If Photoshop was hosted online by Adobe, you would be free to do so. It's copyrighted, but you'd have an implied license to use it by the fact it's being made available to you to download. Same reason search engines can save and present cached snapshots of a website (Field v. Google). In other situations (e.g: downloading from an unofficial source) you're right that private copying is (in the US) still prima facie copyright infringement. However, when considering a fair use defense, courts do take the distinction into strong consideration: "verbatim intermediate copying has consistently been upheld as fair use if the copy is ‘not reveal[ed] . . . to the public.’" (Authors Guild v. Google) If you were using Photoshop in some transformative way that gives it new purpose (e.g: documenting the evolution of software UIs, rather than just making a photo with it as designed) then you may* be able to get away with downloading it from unofficial sources via a fair use defense. *: (this is not legal advice)
- 3y ago
navjack27 3y ago
Dalle on Bing is happy to generate Mario and Luigi and Sonic and basically everybody from everybody without using crafty language so I'm unsure of what you're talking about.
JAlexoid 3y ago
It would be interesting to see if courts agree that training+transforming = copying. If I paint a picture inspired by Starry Night(Van Gogh) - does that inherently infringe on the original? I looked at that painting, learned the characteristics, looked at other similar paintings and painted my own. I basically trained my brain. (and I mean the copyright, not the individual physical painting) And I mean cases where I am not intentionally trying to recreate the original, but doing a derivative(aka inspired) work. Because it's already settled that recreating the original from memory will infringe on copyright.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

>Those that do, are quickly clamped down on — you’ll find it hard to get Dalle to generate an image of anything Nintendo related, unless you’re using crafty language. really it seems more like someone was afraid of angering Nintendo who is a corporate adversary one does not like to fight and thus it has a bunch of blocks to keep from generating anything that offends Nintendo, that does not really translate to quickly and easily stopping and blocking offending generations across every copyrighted work in the world.

raphman 3y ago

> Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. What I don't understand (as a European with little knowledge of court decisions on fair use): with the same reasoning you might make software piracy a case of 'fair use', no? You take stuff someone else wrote - without their consent - and use it to create something new. The output (e.g. the artwork you create with Photoshop) is definitely not copyrighted by the manufacturer of the software. But in the case of software piracy, it is not about the output. With software, it seems clear that the act of taking something you do not have the rights for and using it for personal (financial) gain is not covered by fair use. Why can OpenAI steal copyrighted content to create transformative works but I cannot steal Photoshop to create transformative works? What am I missing?

JAlexoid 3y ago
> make software piracy a case of 'fair use' That's not a good example. Making a copy of a record you own(as an example ripping a audio CD to MP3) is absolutely fair use. Giving your video game to your neighbor to play - that's also fair use. Fair use is limited when it comes to transformative/derivative work. Similar laws are in place all over the world, just in US some of those come from case law. > With software, it seems clear that the act of taking something you do not have the rights for and using it for personal (financial) gain is not covered by fair use. > Why can OpenAI steal copyrighted content to create transformative works but I cannot steal Photoshop to create transformative works? That's not a good analogy. The argument, that is not settled yet, is that a model doesn't contain enough copyrightable material to produce an infringing output. Take your software example - you legally acquire Civ6, you play Civ6, you learn the concepts and the visuals of Civ6... then you take that knowledge and create a game that is similar to Civ6. If you're a copyright maximalist - then you would say that creating any games that mimic Civ6 by people who have played Civ6 is copyright infringement. Legally there are definitely lower limits to copyright - like no one owns the copyright to the phrase "Once upon a time", but there may be a copyright on "In a galaxy far far away".
Ukv 3y ago
> Why can OpenAI steal copyrighted content to create transformative works but I cannot steal Photoshop to create transformative works? What am I missing? If Photoshop was hosted online by Adobe, you would be free to do so. It's copyrighted, but you'd have an implied license to use it by the fact it's being made available to you to download. Same reason search engines can save and present cached snapshots of a website (Field v. Google). In other situations (e.g: downloading from an unofficial source) you're right that private copying is (in the US) still prima facie copyright infringement. However, when considering a fair use defense, courts do take the distinction into strong consideration: "verbatim intermediate copying has consistently been upheld as fair use if the copy is ‘not reveal[ed] . . . to the public.’" (Authors Guild v. Google) If you were using Photoshop in some transformative way that gives it new purpose (e.g: documenting the evolution of software UIs, rather than just making a photo with it as designed) then you may* be able to get away with downloading it from unofficial sources via a fair use defense. *: (this is not legal advice)
3y ago

navjack27 3y ago

Dalle on Bing is happy to generate Mario and Luigi and Sonic and basically everybody from everybody without using crafty language so I'm unsure of what you're talking about.

JAlexoid 3y ago

It would be interesting to see if courts agree that training+transforming = copying. If I paint a picture inspired by Starry Night(Van Gogh) - does that inherently infringe on the original? I looked at that painting, learned the characteristics, looked at other similar paintings and painted my own. I basically trained my brain. (and I mean the copyright, not the individual physical painting) And I mean cases where I am not intentionally trying to recreate the original, but doing a derivative(aka inspired) work. Because it's already settled that recreating the original from memory will infringe on copyright.