4 ms·

AI has the capacity to exactly reproduce its training data, just because something is a transformed representation does not mean that it isn't copying it in som

by 20k 3mo ago

AI has the capacity to exactly reproduce its training data, just because something is a transformed representation does not mean that it isn't copying it in some fashion. The JPEG format 'just' counts the frequencies in an 8x8 block of pixels, and yes that's 100% copyright infringement

hparadiz 3mo ago
The courts don't agree with you and I don't either. Now what?
- 20k 3mo ago
  Courts have ordered AI models to remove song lyrics from their training data, they most definitely do not agree with you
  - hparadiz 3mo ago
    derivative work & fair use. end of. Not only are you not winning this one but I'm gonna laugh at you the entire time.
    - 20k 3mo ago
      Ok, but courts haven't made those rulings yet so good luck with that
      - hparadiz 2mo ago
        Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025)
        20k 2mo ago
        Did... you read any of these? Fair use is a defence against copyright infringement. Ie you actively say that you *have* committed copyright infringement, but you're allowed to do it under fair use doctrine to train the model. That says nothing about the purposes the model is used for There's also these parts: > its use of pirated books to create such library does not constitute fair use. Which indicates that there are tight bounds depending on the ethics of how the content was obtained Similarly with the second one >Meta moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ cause of action for direct copyright infringement only to the extent that it was premised on a theory that the software comprising LLaMA is itself an infringing derivative work. We're talking specifically about the output of the models being infringing, not whether or not the models themselves are infringing. If you read onwards >Plaintiffs’ claim for vicarious copyright infringement failed because the complaint did not allege that any output generated by LLaMA contained protectable expression that recast, transformed or adapted the books. Without “an infringing output, there can be no vicarious infringement.” Which strongly indicates the precise opposite of what you're saying, if you actually like, read the rulings
        hparadiz 2mo ago
        You are the one that brought up copyright infringement here in your original comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49089627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49089627 I just pointed out none took place. Anyway I'm not replying in this thread anymore.
  - kelnos 3mo ago
    Source on that?
kelnos 3mo ago
I have the capacity to exactly reproduce things I've read as well, but it's not automatically copyright infringement if I do so. > and yes that's 100% copyright infringement Says what court of law? I'm kinda getting tired of this stuff. I'm someone who has been, and still to some extent is, uncomfortable with the possibility of copyright/license laundering in LLMs, but they way you are making your argument is incredibly off-putting and not sympathetic. You're throwing out wild assertions about the law that are not supported by... anything, really.
- hparadiz 3mo ago
  There's way too much hand waving on this topic. It is legal to produce copywritten work. If I draw Pikachu the drawing is mine. Legally. I am simply unable to make money on it. I can give it away if I want with zero liability. I could even hang the drawing up in my restaurant as a decoration. No big deal. What I can't do is use that drawing as my mascot or branding. We have an entirely separate process to determine if you are infringing on a copyright / trademark by using it to sell something. That's why whether or not an LLM can produce a picture of Pikachu is largely irrelevant. It's what you do with it that matters. Even more interestingly if I draw a picture of Pikachu and then the Pokemon Company decides they wanna use that specific picture they actually would have to pay ME for the copyright to use it.
  - bonoboTP 2mo ago
    Let's not mix copyright and trademark in mixed phrases like "infringing on a copyright / trademark". The two are very different concepts with different goals. The main question in the "AI image generator generates a Pikachu image" is whether the AI company serving that image generator to you is violating the copyright or not. Because they make money when doing so (API / subscription cost), and so it's like selling images of Pikachu. The user is likely in the clear as long as they don't go on sell that Pikachu further. But the AI company sold the Pikachu image to the user.
    - hparadiz 2mo ago
      That question is irrelevant. Artists may be hired to reproduce copywritten work without the consent of the copyright owner. In this case an LLM is no different from Photoshop. It is a tool. Nothing more.
foxglacier 2mo ago
I don't think exact copies are what anybody is worried about. It really is the information itself. The GP's been lulled into thinking he owns the knowledge when he only owns (some) rights to the creative way he wrote it. It really is objectionable of him to want to restrict access. Intra-elite culture war is the perfect term to describe it.

by 20k 3mo ago

hparadiz 3mo ago

The courts don't agree with you and I don't either. Now what?

20k 3mo ago
Courts have ordered AI models to remove song lyrics from their training data, they most definitely do not agree with you
- hparadiz 3mo ago
  derivative work & fair use. end of. Not only are you not winning this one but I'm gonna laugh at you the entire time.
  - 20k 3mo ago
    Ok, but courts haven't made those rulings yet so good luck with that
    - hparadiz 2mo ago
      Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025)
      - 20k 2mo ago
        Did... you read any of these? Fair use is a defence against copyright infringement. Ie you actively say that you *have* committed copyright infringement, but you're allowed to do it under fair use doctrine to train the model. That says nothing about the purposes the model is used for There's also these parts: > its use of pirated books to create such library does not constitute fair use. Which indicates that there are tight bounds depending on the ethics of how the content was obtained Similarly with the second one >Meta moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ cause of action for direct copyright infringement only to the extent that it was premised on a theory that the software comprising LLaMA is itself an infringing derivative work. We're talking specifically about the output of the models being infringing, not whether or not the models themselves are infringing. If you read onwards >Plaintiffs’ claim for vicarious copyright infringement failed because the complaint did not allege that any output generated by LLaMA contained protectable expression that recast, transformed or adapted the books. Without “an infringing output, there can be no vicarious infringement.” Which strongly indicates the precise opposite of what you're saying, if you actually like, read the rulings
        hparadiz 2mo ago
        You are the one that brought up copyright infringement here in your original comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49089627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49089627 I just pointed out none took place. Anyway I'm not replying in this thread anymore.
- kelnos 3mo ago
  Source on that?

kelnos 3mo ago

I have the capacity to exactly reproduce things I've read as well, but it's not automatically copyright infringement if I do so. > and yes that's 100% copyright infringement Says what court of law? I'm kinda getting tired of this stuff. I'm someone who has been, and still to some extent is, uncomfortable with the possibility of copyright/license laundering in LLMs, but they way you are making your argument is incredibly off-putting and not sympathetic. You're throwing out wild assertions about the law that are not supported by... anything, really.

hparadiz 3mo ago
There's way too much hand waving on this topic. It is legal to produce copywritten work. If I draw Pikachu the drawing is mine. Legally. I am simply unable to make money on it. I can give it away if I want with zero liability. I could even hang the drawing up in my restaurant as a decoration. No big deal. What I can't do is use that drawing as my mascot or branding. We have an entirely separate process to determine if you are infringing on a copyright / trademark by using it to sell something. That's why whether or not an LLM can produce a picture of Pikachu is largely irrelevant. It's what you do with it that matters. Even more interestingly if I draw a picture of Pikachu and then the Pokemon Company decides they wanna use that specific picture they actually would have to pay ME for the copyright to use it.
- bonoboTP 2mo ago
  Let's not mix copyright and trademark in mixed phrases like "infringing on a copyright / trademark". The two are very different concepts with different goals. The main question in the "AI image generator generates a Pikachu image" is whether the AI company serving that image generator to you is violating the copyright or not. Because they make money when doing so (API / subscription cost), and so it's like selling images of Pikachu. The user is likely in the clear as long as they don't go on sell that Pikachu further. But the AI company sold the Pikachu image to the user.
  - hparadiz 2mo ago
    That question is irrelevant. Artists may be hired to reproduce copywritten work without the consent of the copyright owner. In this case an LLM is no different from Photoshop. It is a tool. Nothing more.

foxglacier 2mo ago

I don't think exact copies are what anybody is worried about. It really is the information itself. The GP's been lulled into thinking he owns the knowledge when he only owns (some) rights to the creative way he wrote it. It really is objectionable of him to want to restrict access. Intra-elite culture war is the perfect term to describe it.