3 ms·

Fair use is an admission of copyright violation. If this is your starting point, you should probably look for new lawyers. In any case, exact reproduction of t

Fair use is an admission of copyright violation. If this is your starting point, you should probably look for new lawyers. In any case, exact reproduction of the full novels as part of a dataset is of course not covered by fair use and proving that through discovery will be trivial.

Ukv 3y ago
> Fair use is an admission of copyright violation. If this is your starting point, you should probably look for new lawyers. It's an admission to copying when there's a prima facie case of copyright infringement, but wouldn't generally be considered actual infringement if the fair use defense is successful. It's perfectly fine to rely on fair use - we'll have to wait and see how it applies to machine learning, but it's not some obscure implausible theory. > In any case, exact reproduction of the full novels as part of a dataset is of course not covered by fair use It definitely can be. Consider in Authors Guild v. Google, where Google copied millions of in-copyright books, stored them internally in full, and made them accessible as snippets: "verbatim intermediate copying has consistently been upheld as fair use if the copy is ‘not reveal[ed] . . . to the public.’"
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Fair use is an admission of copyright violation. No, it is not. It's an admission of copying, but not an admission of copyright violation. Legal copying (which includes fair use) is not a "violation" of any kind. For example, in general it is unlawful to use controlled substances (e.g., morphine). However, if one has a prescription for morphine and uses it in accordance with that prescription (i.e., legally), that isn't an "admission" of "violating" the laws against narcotics use. > If this is your starting point, you should probably look for new lawyers. Someone needs new lawyers, but it's not the OP.

3 ms·

Fair use is an admission of copyright violation. If this is your starting point, you should probably look for new lawyers. In any case, exact reproduction of t

by stefan_ 3y ago

Ukv 3y ago
> Fair use is an admission of copyright violation. If this is your starting point, you should probably look for new lawyers. It's an admission to copying when there's a prima facie case of copyright infringement, but wouldn't generally be considered actual infringement if the fair use defense is successful. It's perfectly fine to rely on fair use - we'll have to wait and see how it applies to machine learning, but it's not some obscure implausible theory. > In any case, exact reproduction of the full novels as part of a dataset is of course not covered by fair use It definitely can be. Consider in Authors Guild v. Google, where Google copied millions of in-copyright books, stored them internally in full, and made them accessible as snippets: "verbatim intermediate copying has consistently been upheld as fair use if the copy is ‘not reveal[ed] . . . to the public.’"
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Fair use is an admission of copyright violation. No, it is not. It's an admission of copying, but not an admission of copyright violation. Legal copying (which includes fair use) is not a "violation" of any kind. For example, in general it is unlawful to use controlled substances (e.g., morphine). However, if one has a prescription for morphine and uses it in accordance with that prescription (i.e., legally), that isn't an "admission" of "violating" the laws against narcotics use. > If this is your starting point, you should probably look for new lawyers. Someone needs new lawyers, but it's not the OP.