And the other way around - are we allowed to train and use neural nets on anyone's work, assuming no near duplicates are generated?
Technically the neural net does not have a copy of the originals inside, it has their summed up gradients. The original model shrunk 4B images to a mere 4GB file, so 1 byte/image worth of information learned from each example, a measly pixel.
The model has learned un-copyrightable things like the shapes of various objects and animals, how they relate, their colours and textures. That should be protected. Let them finally learn how many fingers we have.
Doesn't matter. JPEG of the work is just a bit of numbers to feed equation, doesn't change the fact it's copyright infringement
Exactly the same happens with artists. The only artists who can claim not to have been influenced by seeing the work of other artists lived tens of thousands of years ago. So what makes it okay to process artwork via some processes but not others, when the ultimate output may in some way copy the input anyway?
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of copyright law is that this is explicitly the opposite.
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_909_2016.pdf
>• reproduction of the work in various forms, such as printed publications or sound recordings; >• distribution of copies of the work; >• public performance of the work; >• broadcasting or other communication of the work to the public; >• translation of the work into other languages; and >• adaptation of the work, such as turning a novel into a screenplay
None of these rights, to me, indicate that copyright protects the input. The AI model is not reproducing any specific works, distributing copies of it, performing it in public, broadcasting it, translating it to another language, or adapting the work from one format to another.
Except, in copyright law it depends on the _input_.
These models would not exist if they were not first fed the source material.
Until we have systems that are not trained on a pre-existing corpus this will remain true. No matter how clever the algorithm, without the source material you have no output. Zilch. Nada.
Now, when the source material is someone else's property this means that without - someone else's property - you would have had no output.
So, when you want to use someone else's property, which you do not own, the general rule is that you a) first ask them if you may and b) pay them for the right to use their property.
In this sense it is no different than using a photocopier.
It's the copyright ownership of the material you put into the machine that will interest the judge not the quality of the copy.
I'm really looking forward to the first court cases and predict that much hilarity will ensue!