4 ms·

Derivative works are only concerned with the licensing of the original work if they don't fall under fair use. It's really, really hard to argue that an open we

Derivative works are only concerned with the licensing of the original work if they don't fall under fair use. It's really, really hard to argue that an open weight AI doesn't fall under fair use. 1. "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" -> an openly distributed model is not of commercial nature. Check one for fair use. 2. "the nature of the copyrighted work;" -> Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone has very little in common nature with an artificial intelligence that produces arbitrary text based on a prompt. Check two for fair use. 3. "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;" -> The amount (all of it) goes in favor of the original work, but the substatiality of it is definitely more ambiguous, as while if they had used none of the copyrighted works, the AI couldn't exist, any single original copyright holder's work contributed very little to the end result. 4. "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." -> No one's using AI to avoid having to buy a copy of Harry Potter. An AI and a book are not currently considered substitutable goods. Basically, even if a model's weights constitute a derivative work of the training material's copywritten material (that's another can of worms, there's a finite possibility copyright doesn't protect/apply to weights at all), there's a very good argument to be made for fair use.

anileated 3y ago
1. First, there are commercial models. But also, we could consider that if something specifically enables unfair use then that may deserve a look. 2. Weights are a derivative of another nature, but one that specifically enables mass production of derivatives of the same nature. Could be an important concept that simply didn’t exist until now. 3. That’s roughly my understanding, too. 4. Valid point on one hand, but consider that using LLMs is exactly substitutable for any non-fiction book or resource. If no one can sell a book, then who would write them?

anileated 3y ago

1. First, there are commercial models. But also, we could consider that if something specifically enables unfair use then that may deserve a look. 2. Weights are a derivative of another nature, but one that specifically enables mass production of derivatives of the same nature. Could be an important concept that simply didn’t exist until now. 3. That’s roughly my understanding, too. 4. Valid point on one hand, but consider that using LLMs is exactly substitutable for any non-fiction book or resource. If no one can sell a book, then who would write them?