I fucked with the title a bit. What i linked to was actually a mastodon post linking to an actual thing. but in my defense, i found it because cory doctorow boosted it, so, in a way, i am providing the original source here.

please argue. please do not remove.

  • Melllvar
    link
    English
    614 months ago

    I think we should have a rule that says if a LLM company invokes fair use on the training inputs then the outputs are public domain.

    • @Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      That’s already been ruled on once.

      A recent lawsuit challenged the human-authorship requirement in the context of works purportedly “authored” by AI. In June 2022, Stephen Thaler sued the Copyright Office for denying his application to register a visual artwork that he claims was authored “autonomously” by an AI program called the Creativity Machine. Dr. Thaler argued that human authorship is not required by the Copyright Act. On August 18, 2023, a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Copyright Office. The court held that “human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim,” reasoning that only human authors need copyright as an incentive to create works. Dr. Thaler has stated that he plans to appeal the decision.

      Why would companies care about copyright of the output? The value is in the tool to create it. The whole issue to me revolves around the AI company profiting on it’s service. A service built on a massive library of copyrighted works. It seems clear to me, a large portion of their revenue should go equally to the owners of the works in their database.

        • @Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          84 months ago

          That’s just saying you can claim copyright if you lie about authorship. The problem then is, you may step into the realm of fraud.

            • Aatube
              link
              fedilink
              34 months ago

              Well, what you initially said sounded like fraud, but the incredibly long page indeed doesn’t talk about fraud. However, it also seems a bit vague. What counts as your contributions to the work? Is it part of the input the model was trained on, “I wrote the prompt”, or making additionally changes based on the result?

              • @Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                44 months ago

                The vagueness surrounding contributions is particularly troubling. Without clearer guidelines, this seems like a recipe for lawsuits.

    • @kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14 months ago

      The outputs are not copyrightable.

      But something not being copyrightable doesn’t necessarily mean openly distributed.

      It does mean OpenAI can’t really restrict or go after other companies training off of GPT-4 outputs though, which is occurring broadly.