4 ms·

If an LLM is a product, and it contains the work (in this case can spit out Harry Potter) it is derivative. Doesn't matter what it's used for.

fc417fc802 8mo ago
That's dogma on your part. Rather than practical outcome you're opting for human exceptionalism. I can't accept that. Merely containing a work doesn't make something derivative. A photograph could inadvertently capture a copyrighted image in the background but so long as it isn't the primary focus I think your line of reasoning there fails.
- _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
  TIL that the law is dogma. I'm opting for the law differentiating between a product and a person. 'We trained our model on Harry Potter and somehow Harry Potter got into our model' is a ridiculous defense.
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    It is your view that's dogmatic. The law in this area has yet to be fully tested in court, let alone any prospective changes that might be made to it in the near future. Regardless, I thought this was a discussion about what the law ought to say. The defense is that the model is not designed to output Harry Potter verbatim, and in fact will not unless you jump through lots of hoops. Image generation would probably provide you with a stronger position here since those setups can easily output likenesses without needing to carefully engineer the prompt to cause them to do so. But even then it is clearly not the intention of the people training or deploying them that they be used that way.
dragonwriter 8mo ago
> If an LLM is a product, and it contains the work (in this case can spit out Harry Potter) it is derivative. Doesn't matter what it's used for. That's not the definition of a derivative work in copyright law; further, whether what legally qualifies as a derivative work is within the scope of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder is, in the US, subject to whether it is within one of the exceptions to exclusive rights in the law, notably the fair use exception, which very much does depend on, among other things, what it is used for.

fc417fc802 8mo ago

That's dogma on your part. Rather than practical outcome you're opting for human exceptionalism. I can't accept that. Merely containing a work doesn't make something derivative. A photograph could inadvertently capture a copyrighted image in the background but so long as it isn't the primary focus I think your line of reasoning there fails.

_DeadFred_ 8mo ago
TIL that the law is dogma. I'm opting for the law differentiating between a product and a person. 'We trained our model on Harry Potter and somehow Harry Potter got into our model' is a ridiculous defense.
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  It is your view that's dogmatic. The law in this area has yet to be fully tested in court, let alone any prospective changes that might be made to it in the near future. Regardless, I thought this was a discussion about what the law ought to say. The defense is that the model is not designed to output Harry Potter verbatim, and in fact will not unless you jump through lots of hoops. Image generation would probably provide you with a stronger position here since those setups can easily output likenesses without needing to carefully engineer the prompt to cause them to do so. But even then it is clearly not the intention of the people training or deploying them that they be used that way.

dragonwriter 8mo ago

> If an LLM is a product, and it contains the work (in this case can spit out Harry Potter) it is derivative. Doesn't matter what it's used for. That's not the definition of a derivative work in copyright law; further, whether what legally qualifies as a derivative work is within the scope of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder is, in the US, subject to whether it is within one of the exceptions to exclusive rights in the law, notably the fair use exception, which very much does depend on, among other things, what it is used for.