GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright | Computer Weekly
www.computerweekly.com
Artificial intelligence firm Anthropic hits out at copyright lawsuit filed by music publishing corporations, claiming the content ingested into its models falls under ‘fair use’ and that any licensing regime created to manage its use of copyrighted material in training data would be too complex and costly to work in practice

GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.worldEnglish
    416·
    11 months ago

    Not that I am a fan of the current implementation of copyright in the US, but I know if I was planning on building my business around something that couldn’t exist without violating copyright I would surely thought of that fairly early on.

    • beebarfbadger@lemmy.worldEnglish
      202·
      11 months ago

      “My profits from fencing your wallet could not exist if stealing your wallet were punished.”

      “Ah, you’re right, how silly of me, carry on.”

    • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      33·
      11 months ago

      You should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries.

      • nymwit@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

        from your second link. I don’t often see this brought up in discussions. The problem of models trained on copyrighted info is definitely different than what you do with that model/output from it. If you’re making money from infringing, the fair use arguments are historically less successful. I have less of an issue with the general training of a model vs. commercial infringing use.

        • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          52·
          11 months ago

          You’re responsible for infringing works, whether you used Photoshop, copy & paste, or a generative model.

          • nymwit@lemm.eeEnglish
            3·
            11 months ago

            I don’t disagree with that statement. I’m having trouble seeing how that fits with what I said, though. Can you elaborate?

            • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              12·
              11 months ago

              It doesn’t really, I was just kind of restating what you quoted. Since no one factor of fair use is more important than the others, and it is possible to have a fair use defense even if you do not meet all the criteria of fair use, do you have data to back up your claims about moneymaking infringement?

              • nymwit@lemm.eeEnglish
                2·
                11 months ago

                Cool. Thanks. I can see it now. No, not really, just the pieces over time I’ve read on what wins fair use protections when challenged often talk about the interpretations involved and that profit making was generally seen as detracting from gaining fair use protections when the extent of the transformative nature was in question.

                This mentions it, but of course it isn’t data on what has been granted protections vs. denials of protection. Harvard counsel primer on copyright and fair use

                Noncommercial use is more likely to be deemed fair use than commercial use, and the statute expressly contrasts nonprofit educational purposes with commercial ones. However, uses made at or by a nonprofit educational institution may be deemed commercial if they are made in connection with content that is sold, ad-supported, or profit-making. When the use of a work is commercial, the user must show a greater degree of transformation (see below) in order to establish that it is fair.