4 ms·

> because they were used in inputs, the whole model is infringing That is a nonsense argument on its face, but: > because the model can be coerced into produc

by feoren 3y ago

> because they were used in inputs, the whole model is infringing That is a nonsense argument on its face, but: > because the model can be coerced into producing a copyrighted output That is an extremely good argument. In fact it's almost completely damning, unless you can show that "being coerced into it" means re-introducing enough information in the input that the model's infringement is mostly a regurgitation of that input. But it's clearly not, if you can simply ask it nicely to reproduce an entire text and it does so. > Individual outputs from a model can be claimed as infringement (for example, the Mario reproductions) against any user that publishes those works How is that different than operating MP3.com, or a Warez site? The same argument would say "it's the downloading user that is infringing, not the platform!" But clearly that hasn't held up. Consider ChatGPT as a platform hosting a ton of copyrighted material that it produces for you if you ask it nicely, and it's clearly in a much worse position than MP3.com was. ChatGPT is itself publishing those works. Even if it's not hosted online, publshing the GPT model means publishing a huge collection of copyrighted works. I don't see any way around it.

kromem 3y ago
The model producing copyrighted material isn't as great an argument as people seem to think. The cases are pursuing training as infringement, not usage. So in the case of Mario - there's no infringing in learning the attributes of the most recognizable Italian plumber in video games. It is only when the models create images of Mario in their usage that's infringing (which will be separate cases and those will likely be a shoe-in for plaintiffs forcing copyright tagging filters in front of publicly accessible generative models). The most damning part is the reproductions of the NYT text, as that's not simply learning attributes of a copyrighted character, but verbatim partial duplication. I suspect in many of those cases it's due to fair use copying of segments of NYT articles by multiple other sources in the training data, but it's going to be difficult waters for the defense to navigate even if that's the case - but this is also technically impossible for any trained LLM to avoid. If a source you have rights to quotes a source you don't have rights to, you are going to ingest a legally permissible usage of material that suddenly will no longer be legally permissible to have ingested? We'll see how it plays out, but it really seems like it's just going to come down to a drawn out appeals battle no matter how it lands given different judges are likely going to each ultimately see it differently given both sides have potentially compelling arguments.

by feoren 3y ago

kromem 3y ago

The model producing copyrighted material isn't as great an argument as people seem to think. The cases are pursuing training as infringement, not usage. So in the case of Mario - there's no infringing in learning the attributes of the most recognizable Italian plumber in video games. It is only when the models create images of Mario in their usage that's infringing (which will be separate cases and those will likely be a shoe-in for plaintiffs forcing copyright tagging filters in front of publicly accessible generative models). The most damning part is the reproductions of the NYT text, as that's not simply learning attributes of a copyrighted character, but verbatim partial duplication. I suspect in many of those cases it's due to fair use copying of segments of NYT articles by multiple other sources in the training data, but it's going to be difficult waters for the defense to navigate even if that's the case - but this is also technically impossible for any trained LLM to avoid. If a source you have rights to quotes a source you don't have rights to, you are going to ingest a legally permissible usage of material that suddenly will no longer be legally permissible to have ingested? We'll see how it plays out, but it really seems like it's just going to come down to a drawn out appeals battle no matter how it lands given different judges are likely going to each ultimately see it differently given both sides have potentially compelling arguments.