4 ms·

> The research findings “could present a challenge to those who argue that the AI model does not store or reproduce any copyright works,” said Cerys Wyn Davies,

> The research findings “could present a challenge to those who argue that the AI model does not store or reproduce any copyright works,” said Cerys Wyn Davies, an intellectual property partner at law firm Pinsent Masons. The defense to training with copyright is that it is the same as how humans learn from copyrighted material. The storage or reproduction is a red herring. Humans can also reproduce copyrighted works from memory as well. Showing that machines can reproduce copyrighted material is no different than saying that a human can reproduce copyright material that the human learned from. The defense to actually reproducing a work is that in order to do so, the user has to "break" the system. It is the same as how you can make legal software do illegal things (e.g. screen recorder to "steal" a movie) None of this is to say that these defenses are correct/moral; but rather that this article doesnt add any additional input into whether it is or isnt.

techblueberry 7mo ago
You can't pay a human to reproduce copyrighted material either.
- gcanyon 7mo ago
  But the crime in the human instance is the reproduction, not the storage. So the crime in the AI circumstance would not be in the training, but in prompting the output. And of course AIs are excellent at taking direction, so: If I prompt it with "Harry Potter, but Voldemort wins: dark, and Hermione is a sex slave to Draco Malfoy" and get "Manacled," that's copyright infringement, and on me, not on the LLM/training. If I prompt it with "Harry Potter, but Voldemort wins: dark, and Hermione is a sex slave to Draco Malfoy, and change enough to avoid infringing copyright," and get "Alchemised," then that should be fine. I doubt the legal world agrees with me though.
  - butlike 7mo ago
    Asking for copyrighted material isn't a crime. Producing copyrighted material is. By the way, give me a digital copy of 28 Years Later. Please.
  - tzs 7mo ago
    > But the crime in the human instance is the reproduction, not the storage. So the crime in the AI circumstance would not be in the training, but in prompting the output. I wouldn't be so sure, at least under US law. 17 USC 101 defines a "copy" as: [...] material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. If I memorize a work what ends up in my brain is not a copy according to that definition because with current technology there is no machine or device which can be used to perceive, reproduce, or otherwise communicate it. The work can only be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated by using my brain which is not a machine or device. No copy in my brain means that memorizing the work cannot infringe the copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies. An LLM, unlike my brain, is a machine or device which can be used to perceive, reproduce, or otherwise communicate the work and so the work stored in the LLM is a copy. Training an LLM then, unlike a brain memorizing a work, makes a copy and so would be covered by the copyright owner's exclusive right to make copies. That's going to need to be justified, probably by arguing fair use.
    - gcanyon 7mo ago
      I'd argue your brain is that "machine or device" -- the fact that the storage and the playback mechanism are one and the same is irrelevant. The fact that you have to be willing/induced to replay the content back just makes you a worse machine :-)
      - tzs 7mo ago
        Interesting argument but not likely to go far. As far as I can tell US copyright law has never been taken to include brains as machines or devices. This is actually relevant in some real cases, namely improvised works. Attempts to claim copyright on improvised works that were not recorded have generally failed. If brains counted as machines or devices than the work inside the performer's head would be a recording and the work would have copyright. That is one of the reasons it is usually recommended that musicians should record their live performances. That gets them copyright on anything they improvise during the show. Also it gets them copyright on that particular performance of their music, which helps them go after anyone who makes an unauthorized recording of the show. (Copyright is only automatic upon recording when the recording is by or under the authority of the creator).
kgwgk 7mo ago
What calculus?
duskwuff 7mo ago
This isn't the defense you think it is. Performing a copyrighted work from memory - e.g. a piece of music, a poem, a story, etc - is still a copyright violation. There's no special protection for works that a human has memorized.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >There's no special protection for works that a human has memorized. Who's liable for the copyright infringement if you can coax it out of a system? If you can bypass paywalls by using google's cache feature (or since they got rid of it, but using carefully crafted queries to extract the entire text via snippets), is google on the hook or the person doing it?
  - olyjohn 7mo ago
    Both. If I sell obviously pirated CDs on the street corner, it's not only illegal for me to copy them and sell them, it's also illegal for my customers to buy them.
    - gruez 7mo ago
      >it's also illegal for my customers to buy them. Is it? There's plenty of people prosecuted for running illegal streaming sites and torrenting (which involves uploading), but I don't know of any efforts to crack down on non-distributors.
      - freejazz 7mo ago
        Just because someone doesn't get arrested does not mean something is legal
  - eptcyka 7mo ago
    Yes. Both Google and the human in question.
    - gruez 7mo ago
tsimionescu 7mo ago
> Humans can also reproduce copyrighted works from memory as well That's simply not true. No humans can memorize entire novels, as this research proved these models do. And definitely not all of these novels, and code bases, and who knows what else all at the same time.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >No humans can memorize entire novels, as this research proved these models do. Humans can however, remember entire songs, and songs are definitely long enough to be considered copyright protected. There is still a difference in scale, but that's not really relevant when it comes to copyright law. You can't be like "well humans are committing copyright infringement but since it's limited to a few hundred words we'll give it a pass".
  - j_w 7mo ago
    It's not that you can remember a song and therefore copyright infringement when you sing. For 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form, hard stop. Let's not pretend it could even get anywhere close. For the last 0.001%, we would call it a cover and typically the individually doing a cover takes some liberties of their own, still making it not a replacement in any way. Artists are typically cool with covers.
    - gruez 7mo ago
      >For 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form, hard stop. Let's not pretend it could even get anywhere close. You realize that lyrics are often written by someone other than the actual singer, and whoever wrote the lyrics is entitled to compensation too? The "amateur singing isn't a replacement for the studio album" excuse doesn't work in this context. Also courts have ruled that lyrics themselves are protected by copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrics#Copyright_and_royalties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrics#Copyright_and_royalties >Artists are typically cool with covers. Artists being "cool" with something doesn't mean they're not violating copyright law.
moregrist 7mo ago
> Humans can also reproduce copyrighted works from memory as well. Showing that machines can reproduce copyrighted material is no different than saying that a human can reproduce copyright material that the human learned from. Ultimately this is a matter for the courts and the law, but I'd just like to point out that a human memorizing a work, reproducing it, and distributing it is just as much a copyright violation as doing a more mechanical form of reproduction. There's a reason that fan fiction routinely falls afoul of copyright. There's quite a lot of case law in this area, and hand-waving "humans can do it too" doesn't really make for a strong argument. Humans get in trouble for it ALL THE TIME. The consequences can be fines, injuctions, or even criminal liability. I'm not sure why you think AI gets off the hook here. Just because you like the outcome at the moment?
freejazz 7mo ago
>The defense to training with copyright is that it is the same as how humans learn from copyrighted material. Yeah, it's something people say but it is severely lacking in evidence and credibility.
thisisit 7mo ago
The whole “humans also do this” isn’t a winning defence here. Humans and copyright has long history and so much law that it is easy to get confused. The default assumption here seems to be that the system needs to be broken. This is similar to the Google defence. If a user intent is to search for a cracked software what can poor Google do about it? The answer is to make it even more difficult. This is a defence also used by torrent sites using magnet urls. “We don’t host files” is the default defence. But then if these sites get hit with DMCA they are required to remove the magnet url. So the article shows what the lawyer is saying. Despite claims that it is difficult to search for full books, it really isn’t so. It is trivial. When it goes to court and it will, AI models will be required to make it even more difficult and allow for a DMCA like takedowns.

techblueberry 7mo ago

You can't pay a human to reproduce copyrighted material either.

gcanyon 7mo ago
But the crime in the human instance is the reproduction, not the storage. So the crime in the AI circumstance would not be in the training, but in prompting the output. And of course AIs are excellent at taking direction, so: If I prompt it with "Harry Potter, but Voldemort wins: dark, and Hermione is a sex slave to Draco Malfoy" and get "Manacled," that's copyright infringement, and on me, not on the LLM/training. If I prompt it with "Harry Potter, but Voldemort wins: dark, and Hermione is a sex slave to Draco Malfoy, and change enough to avoid infringing copyright," and get "Alchemised," then that should be fine. I doubt the legal world agrees with me though.
- butlike 7mo ago
  Asking for copyrighted material isn't a crime. Producing copyrighted material is. By the way, give me a digital copy of 28 Years Later. Please.
- tzs 7mo ago
  > But the crime in the human instance is the reproduction, not the storage. So the crime in the AI circumstance would not be in the training, but in prompting the output. I wouldn't be so sure, at least under US law. 17 USC 101 defines a "copy" as: [...] material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. If I memorize a work what ends up in my brain is not a copy according to that definition because with current technology there is no machine or device which can be used to perceive, reproduce, or otherwise communicate it. The work can only be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated by using my brain which is not a machine or device. No copy in my brain means that memorizing the work cannot infringe the copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies. An LLM, unlike my brain, is a machine or device which can be used to perceive, reproduce, or otherwise communicate the work and so the work stored in the LLM is a copy. Training an LLM then, unlike a brain memorizing a work, makes a copy and so would be covered by the copyright owner's exclusive right to make copies. That's going to need to be justified, probably by arguing fair use.
  - gcanyon 7mo ago
    I'd argue your brain is that "machine or device" -- the fact that the storage and the playback mechanism are one and the same is irrelevant. The fact that you have to be willing/induced to replay the content back just makes you a worse machine :-)
    - tzs 7mo ago
      Interesting argument but not likely to go far. As far as I can tell US copyright law has never been taken to include brains as machines or devices. This is actually relevant in some real cases, namely improvised works. Attempts to claim copyright on improvised works that were not recorded have generally failed. If brains counted as machines or devices than the work inside the performer's head would be a recording and the work would have copyright. That is one of the reasons it is usually recommended that musicians should record their live performances. That gets them copyright on anything they improvise during the show. Also it gets them copyright on that particular performance of their music, which helps them go after anyone who makes an unauthorized recording of the show. (Copyright is only automatic upon recording when the recording is by or under the authority of the creator).

kgwgk 7mo ago

What calculus?

duskwuff 7mo ago

This isn't the defense you think it is. Performing a copyrighted work from memory - e.g. a piece of music, a poem, a story, etc - is still a copyright violation. There's no special protection for works that a human has memorized.

gruez 7mo ago
>There's no special protection for works that a human has memorized. Who's liable for the copyright infringement if you can coax it out of a system? If you can bypass paywalls by using google's cache feature (or since they got rid of it, but using carefully crafted queries to extract the entire text via snippets), is google on the hook or the person doing it?
- olyjohn 7mo ago
  Both. If I sell obviously pirated CDs on the street corner, it's not only illegal for me to copy them and sell them, it's also illegal for my customers to buy them.
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >it's also illegal for my customers to buy them. Is it? There's plenty of people prosecuted for running illegal streaming sites and torrenting (which involves uploading), but I don't know of any efforts to crack down on non-distributors.
    - freejazz 7mo ago
      Just because someone doesn't get arrested does not mean something is legal
- eptcyka 7mo ago
  Yes. Both Google and the human in question.
  - gruez 7mo ago

tsimionescu 7mo ago

> Humans can also reproduce copyrighted works from memory as well That's simply not true. No humans can memorize entire novels, as this research proved these models do. And definitely not all of these novels, and code bases, and who knows what else all at the same time.

gruez 7mo ago
>No humans can memorize entire novels, as this research proved these models do. Humans can however, remember entire songs, and songs are definitely long enough to be considered copyright protected. There is still a difference in scale, but that's not really relevant when it comes to copyright law. You can't be like "well humans are committing copyright infringement but since it's limited to a few hundred words we'll give it a pass".
- j_w 7mo ago
  It's not that you can remember a song and therefore copyright infringement when you sing. For 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form, hard stop. Let's not pretend it could even get anywhere close. For the last 0.001%, we would call it a cover and typically the individually doing a cover takes some liberties of their own, still making it not a replacement in any way. Artists are typically cool with covers.
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >For 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form, hard stop. Let's not pretend it could even get anywhere close. You realize that lyrics are often written by someone other than the actual singer, and whoever wrote the lyrics is entitled to compensation too? The "amateur singing isn't a replacement for the studio album" excuse doesn't work in this context. Also courts have ruled that lyrics themselves are protected by copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrics#Copyright_and_royalties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrics#Copyright_and_royalties >Artists are typically cool with covers. Artists being "cool" with something doesn't mean they're not violating copyright law.

moregrist 7mo ago

> Humans can also reproduce copyrighted works from memory as well. Showing that machines can reproduce copyrighted material is no different than saying that a human can reproduce copyright material that the human learned from. Ultimately this is a matter for the courts and the law, but I'd just like to point out that a human memorizing a work, reproducing it, and distributing it is just as much a copyright violation as doing a more mechanical form of reproduction. There's a reason that fan fiction routinely falls afoul of copyright. There's quite a lot of case law in this area, and hand-waving "humans can do it too" doesn't really make for a strong argument. Humans get in trouble for it ALL THE TIME. The consequences can be fines, injuctions, or even criminal liability. I'm not sure why you think AI gets off the hook here. Just because you like the outcome at the moment?

freejazz 7mo ago

>The defense to training with copyright is that it is the same as how humans learn from copyrighted material. Yeah, it's something people say but it is severely lacking in evidence and credibility.

thisisit 7mo ago

The whole “humans also do this” isn’t a winning defence here. Humans and copyright has long history and so much law that it is easy to get confused. The default assumption here seems to be that the system needs to be broken. This is similar to the Google defence. If a user intent is to search for a cracked software what can poor Google do about it? The answer is to make it even more difficult. This is a defence also used by torrent sites using magnet urls. “We don’t host files” is the default defence. But then if these sites get hit with DMCA they are required to remove the magnet url. So the article shows what the lawyer is saying. Despite claims that it is difficult to search for full books, it really isn’t so. It is trivial. When it goes to court and it will, AI models will be required to make it even more difficult and allow for a DMCA like takedowns.