3 ms·

I would think all you need to do is add a copyright statement of some kind. Sad things are getting to this point. Maybe I should add this to my site :) (c) C

• jasperr1 2y ago
  The reality is that a lot of these small websites have very permissive licenses. I really hope we don't get to the point where we must all make our licenses stricter.
  • krapp 2y ago
    The reality is that none of these LLM scrapers give a damn about copyright, because the entire AI industry is built on flagrant copyright violation, and the premise that they can be stopped by a magic string is laughable. You could sue, if you can afford it, meanwhile all of your data is already training their models.
    • jasonjayr 2y ago
      A class action, funded by their rivals could hurt quite a bit, especially for sites damaged monetarily by these LLM scrapers.
• JohnFen 2y ago
  Such a notice is legally meaningless, though. Doubly so if the courts rule that scraping for AI purposes counts as fair use.
• Aurornis 2y ago
  Copyright is for topics like redistribution of the source material. You can’t add arbitrary terms to a copyright claim that go beyond what copyright law supports. I think you’re confusing copyright with a EULA. You would need users to agree to the EULA terms before viewing the material. You can’t hide contractual obligations in the footer of your website and call it copyright.
  • 101008 2y ago
    What about if my index says "This are the EULA, by clicking "Next" or "Enter", you are accepting them", and a LLM scrapper "clicks" Next to fetch the rest of the content?
    • aaronbaugher 2y ago
      That's how the big software companies have been doing it to us for years, so it does seem like turnabout would be fair play.
      • WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
        "Ah, but for us, it's unenforceable, it's for you little people." "Copyright? Well if you are a big label, we probably need to talk. Little people? Oh fuck you, just give us your money and creative output."
• jefftk 2y ago
  It's reasonably likely, but not yet settled, that LLM training falls under fair use and doesn't require a license. This is what the https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/ https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/ class action (from 2022) is about, and its still making its way through the court. This prediction market has it at 12% likely to succeed, suggesting that courts will not agree with you: https://manifold.markets/JeffKaufman/will-the-github-copilot-litigation https://manifold.markets/JeffKaufman/will-the-github-copilot...
  • dingnuts 2y ago
    this isn't about copyright but about computer access. the CFAA is extremely broad; if you ban LLM companies from access on grounds of purpose you have every legal right to do so in theory that legislation has teeth, too. they are not allowed to access your system if you say they are not; authentication is irrelevant. every GET request to a system that doesn't permit access for training data is a felony
  • waveringana 2y ago
    why are we pretending that these gambling sites have any weight on anything
    • eudhxhdhsb32 2y ago
      What do you mean by weights? I'd certainly trust their predictions more than those given by most "experts".
  • maeln 2y ago
    > This prediction market has it at 12% likely to succeed Randos on the internet with a betting addiction are distinctively different from a court of law. I wish people would stop talking about prediction market as if they mattered.
    • eudhxhdhsb32 2y ago
      Participants in prediction market do not need to be experts for their collective input to be informative. There's a long history of economic research on the "wisdom of crowds" that backs up their value.
• jcranmer 2y ago
  The argument the AI companies are making is that training for LLMs is fair use which means a copyright statement means fuck all from their point of view. (Even if it does, assuming you're in the US, unless you register the copyright with the US copyright office, you can only sue for actual damages, which means the cost of filing a lawsuit against them--not even litigating, just the court fee for saying "I have a lawsuit"--would be more expensive than anything you could recover. Even if you did register and sued for statutory damages, the cost of litigation would probably exceed the recovery you could expect.) Of course, the big AI companies are already trying to get the government to codify AI training as fair use and sidestep the litigation which doesn't seem to be going entirely their way on this matter (cf. https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/03/google-agrees-with-openai-that-copyright-has-no-place-in-ai-development/ https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/03/google-agrees-with-op...).
  • tsumnia 2y ago
    In addition, we need to start paying attention to the growing legislation about AI and copyright law. There was an article on HN I think this week (or last) specifically where a judge ruled AI cannot own copyright on its generated materials. IANAL, but I do wonder how this ruling will be used as a point of reference whenever we finally ask the question "Does material produced by GenAI violate copyright laws?" Specifically if it cannot claim ownership, a right that we've awarded to trees and monkeys, how does it operate within ownership laws? And don't even get me ranting about HUMAN digital rights or Personified AIs.
  • tqwhite 2y ago
    Fair use requires transformation. LLM is as transformative as it gets. If I'm on the jury, you're going to have to make new copyright law for me to convict. I am personally happy to have everyone, people and LLM alike, learn from my wisdom.
    • jcranmer 2y ago
      > Fair use requires transformation. No, it doesn't. There are four factors for fair use, and whether the use is transformative is part of one of them. And you don't need to win on all four factors. > LLM is as transformative as it gets. The current ruling precedent for "transformative" is the Warhol decision, which effectively says that to look at whether or not something is transformative, you kind of have to start by analyzing its impact on the market (and if you're going "doesn't that import the fourth factor into the first?" the answer is "yes, I don't like it, but it's what SCOTUS said"). By that definition, LLMs are nowhere near "transformative." Even pre-Warhol, their role as "transformative" is sketchy, because you have to remember that this is using its legal definition, not its colloquial definition. > If I'm on the jury Fortunately, for this kind of question, the jury isn't going to be involved in determining fair use, so it doesn't matter what you think.
• jeffwask 2y ago
  Sure, because Meta certainly followed copyright law to the letter when they torrented thousands of copyrighted books from hundreds of published and known authors to train Lama. Forgive me if I doubt a text disclaimer on the page will slow them down.
• dspillett 2y ago
  Unfortunately copyright is no limit to these companies. Meta is stating in court that knowingly downloading pirated content is perfectly fine (ref https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43125840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43125840) so they for one would have absolutely no issue completely ignoring your copyright notice and stated licensing costs. Good luck affording a legal team to try force them to pay attention. Copyright is something for them to beat us with, not the other way around, apparently.
• kerkeslager 2y ago
  This is pretty naive. The only reason copyright is so strong in the US is that there are big players (Disney, Elsevier) who benefit from it. But gig tech is much bigger, and LLMs have created a situation where big tech has a vested interest in eroding copyright law. Both sides are gearing up for a war in the court systems, and it's definitely not a given who will win. But, if you try to enter the fray as an individual or small company, you definitely aren't going to win.