Re:Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn’t Apply to AI Training
by gary_0 on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @11:09PM
(#36147184)
You could still plausibly generate (a significant portion of), let's say, "Fire And Ice" by Robert Frost, which is only 50 words.
See also: https://blogs.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/haiku-and-the-fair-use-...
Re:Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn’t Apply to AI Training
by andsoitis on Wednesday May 31, 2023 @11:20PM
(#36147233)
If I were the copyright holder of such work, I would argue that the LLM was trained on text, including my copyrighted work, and that if the system produced text that a reasonable person who reads poetry would identify as the copyrighted work, the burden is then logically on the LLM owner to prove the LLM didn't regurgitate a piece of text from something it previously ingested.
I think a jury would side with my argument.
Re:Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn’t Apply to AI Training
by gary_0 on Thursday June 01, 2023 @01:42AM
(#36147920)
The issue isn't that a generator lets you evade copyright somehow; it doesn't. The output is not the issue. If I sit in paint and my assprint happens to perfectly duplicate a Picasso, that's unlikely to fly in court if I try to sell copies. Picasso painted it first.
The point at issue here is that some people are arguing that the models themselves are like a giant collective copyright infringement, since they are in a vague sense simply a sum of the copyrighted works they were trained on. Those people would like to argue that distributing the models or even making use of them is mass copyright infringement. My thought experiment is a reductio ad absurdum of that reasoning.
From https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection...:
Copyright laws disfavor protection for short phrases. Such claims are viewed with suspicion by the Copyright Office, whose circulars state that, “… slogans, and other short phrases or expressions cannot be copyrighted.” [1] These rules are premised on two tenets of copyright law. First, copyright will not protect an idea. Phrases conveying an idea are typically expressed in a limited number of ways and, therefore, are not subject to copyright protection. Second, phrases are considered as common idioms of the English language and are therefore free to all. Granting a monopoly would eventually “checkmate the public” [2] and the purpose of a copyright clause to encourage creativity-would be defeated.