6 ms·
You wouldn't train a LLM on a corpus containing copyrighted works without ensuring you had the necessary rights to the works, would you?
by Polizeiposaune 2y ago
You wouldn't train a LLM on a corpus containing copyrighted works without ensuring you had the necessary rights to the works, would you?
- sharkest 2y ago[flagged]
- urronglol 2y ago[dead]
- deadbabe 2y agoFair use.
- griomnib 2y agoEasy to claim, harder to justify once you start charging money for your subsequent creation. Unless all LLM are a ruthless parody of human intelligence, which they may be, the legal issues will continue.
- dijksterhuis 2y ago*only available in the USA, terms and conditions apply. most other places use fair dealing which is more restrictive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
- bayindirh 2y agoThe moment you earn money from it, that's not fair use anymore. When I last checked, unlimited access to said models were not free, plus it's not "research" anymore. - Addenda - For the interested parties, the law states the following [0]. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors So, if you say that these factors can be flexed depending on the defendant, and can be just waved away to protect the wealthy, then it becomes something else, but given these factors, and how damaging this "fair use" is, I can certainly say that training AI models with copyrighted corpus is not fair use in any way. Of course at the end of the day, IANAL & IANAJ. However, my moral compass directly bars use of copyrighted corpus in publicly accessible, for profit models which undermine many people of their livelihoods. From my perspective, people can whitewash AI training as they see fit to sleep sound at night, but this doesn't change anything from my PoV. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
- xvector 2y agoYou can absolutely monetize works altered under fair use.
- o11c 2y ago"Making money" does not immediately invalidate fair use, but it does wave a big red flag in the courts' faces.
- bayindirh 2y agoSo you say that, every law is a suggestion depending who's being tried?
- o11c 2y agoEr, what? I'm speaking directly from the law, 17 U.S.C. § 107. It's deliberately written in terms of "factors to consider", rather than absolutes. > In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: > * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > * the nature of the copyrighted work; > * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and > * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
- 2y ago
- yieldcrv 2y agoand therefore everyone has the necessary rights to read works, the necessary rights to critique of the works including for commercial purposes, and the necessary rights to derivative works including for commercial purposes
- tomjen3 2y agoYou wouldn't read a book and teach others its lessons without a derived license, would you?
- dijksterhuis 2y agocopyright refers to the act of copying the material at hand (including distribution, reproduction, performance) etc. as an example: saying “i really like james holden’s inheritors album for the rough and dissonant sounds” isn’t covered by copyright. if i reproduced it verbatim using my mouth, or created a derived work which is noticeably similar to the original, that’s a different question though. in your example, a derivative work example could be akin to only quoting from the book for the audience and modifying a word of each quote. “derived” works are always a grey area, especially around generative machine learning right now.
- ben_w 2y agoWhen I was at school, we were sometimes all sat down in front of a TV to watch some movie on VHS tape (it was the 90s). At the start of the tape, there was a copyright notice forbidding the VHS tape from being played at, amongst other places, schools. Copyright rules are a strange thing.
- philwelch 2y agoYou’re applying a double standard to LLM’s and human creators. Any human writer or artist or filmmaker or musician will be influenced by other people’s works, even while those works are still under copyright.
- cmiles74 2y agoI don't see how this is a double standard. Comparing a person interacting with their culture is not comparable in any way. IMHO, it's kind of a wacky argument to make.
- crazygringo 2y agoCan you elaborate on how it's not comparable? It seems obvious to me that it is -- they both learn and then create -- so what's the difference? If I can hire an employee who draws on knowledge they learned from copyrighted textbooks, why can't I hire an AI which draws on knowledge it learned from copyrighted textbooks? What makes that argument "wacky" in your eyes?
- homarp 2y agomost probably your employee actually 'paid' for their textbook.
- tekno45 2y agoyou're asking why you have to treat people differently than you treat tools and machines.
- crazygringo 2y agoWell obviously not in general. But when it comes to copyright law specifically, yes absolutely. That is the question I'm asking.
- salawat 2y agoYou're not going to get an answer you find agreeable, because you're hoping for an answer that allows you to continue to treat the tool as chattel, without conferring to it the excess baggage of being an individuated entity/laborer. You're either going to get: it's a technological, infinitely scalable process, and the training data should be considered what it is, which is intellectual property that should be being licensed before being used. ...or... It actually is the same as human learning, and it's time we started loading these things up with other baggage to be attached to persons if we're going to accept it's possible for a machine to learn like a human. There isn't a reasonable middle ground due to the magnitude of social disruption a chattel quasi-human technological human replacement would cause.
- Workaccount2 2y agoLLMs are not massive archives of data. They are a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of the size of their training set. And before you knee-jerk "it's a compression algo!", I invite you to archive all your data with an LLMs "compression algo".
- int_19h 2y agoIt doesn't matter. It's still a derived work.
- baxtr 2y agoWell what isn’t in this world? Would Einstein would have been possible without Newton?
- thedailymail 2y agoNewton was public domain by Einstein's time.
- jampekka 2y agoIndeed. Copyright was introduced in 1710, Principia was published in 1687.
- 2y ago