4 ms·

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

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.
  - tqwhite 2y ago
    That's untrue. See my comment elsewhere around here. It doesn't rely on the commercial aspect, though if it's not commercial the bar for fair use is set lower. The argument in Warhol relies on the fact that the derivative work, ie, Warhol's painting, is substantially similar in function to the original photograph. If Warhol had used the picture as stuffing for a soft sculpture, it would not infringe. LLM is closer to the latter than the former.
  - tqwhite 2y ago
    "so it doesn't matter what you think" A perfectly fine, if incorrect reply, but then you have to be a dick. Why?

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.
- tqwhite 2y ago
  That's untrue. See my comment elsewhere around here. It doesn't rely on the commercial aspect, though if it's not commercial the bar for fair use is set lower. The argument in Warhol relies on the fact that the derivative work, ie, Warhol's painting, is substantially similar in function to the original photograph. If Warhol had used the picture as stuffing for a soft sculpture, it would not infringe. LLM is closer to the latter than the former.
- tqwhite 2y ago
  "so it doesn't matter what you think" A perfectly fine, if incorrect reply, but then you have to be a dick. Why?