> fully open
> looks inside
> not open source
To save everyone a click: It’s a non-commercial license (with a very rude yoink clause, if anyone is foolish enough to build something on it.)
By the by, there’s a good chance that AI models are not copyrightable under US law; making the license moot in the US. In other regions, such as the EU, it likely holds.
3.3 Use Limitation. The Work and any derivative works thereof only may be used or intended for use non-commercially. Notwithstanding the foregoing, NVIDIA Corporation and its affiliates may use the Work and any derivative works commercially. As used herein, “non-commercially” means for non-commercial research and educational purposes only.
i know that AI output is not copyrighteable, because it wasn’t made by a human.
however the model itself is a product of a shit ton of work. and I doubt any court will claim them non copyrighteable.
That’s not how US copyright works.
My idea would be to slightly modify / fine-tune a model and then redistribute that modified version. And claim the same Fair Use, AI companies use to take people’s copyrighted work. Either that makes it Fair Use as well, or the “no originality required” collapses or the entire business model.
I don’t see how that would be fair use or what the argument is supposed to be.
Let me warn you that Lemmy is full of disinformation on copyright. If you picked the idea up here, then it probably is absolutely bonkers.
In any case, fair use is a US thing. In the EU, it would still be yoink.
I think I used a bit too much sarcasm. I wanted to take a spin on the idea how the AI industry simultaneously uses copyright, and finds ways to “circumvent” the traditional copyright that was written before we had large language models. An AI is neither a telephone-book, nor should every transformative work be Fair Use, no questions asked. And this isn’t really settled as of now. We likely need some more court cases and maybe a few new laws. But you’re right, law is complicated, there is a lot of nuance to it and it depends on jurisdiction.
There is a lot of disinformation being spread on copyright because major rights-holders hope to gain a lot of money for nothing.
US fair use has always worked like this. Other countries without fair use had to make laws to enable AI training. I know about Japan and the EU.
It is precisely because of these new laws that AI training in the EU is possible at all (eg by Mistral AI or by various universities/research institutions). But because of lobbying by rights-holders, this is quite limited. It’s not possible to train AIs in the EU that are as capable as those from the US, where Fair Use comes directly from the constitution and can’t be easily lobbied aside by monied interests.
Alas, we have reached the max comment depth. I cannot reply to your latest comment.
Well, there is a distinction between use and obtaining it. For stealing, the use doesn’t matter. For later use, it does. That’s also what licenses are concerned with.
I see what you mean now. It’s tricky. It’s just another way in which copyright talking points cause problems.
You’re saying that using/copying something you have in a database for AI training should always be legal. However, copying something to add it to the database should be judged as if it was done for enjoyment. EG everyone who torrents a movie should be treated the same, regardless of purpose. This will certainly cause problems for some scientific datasets.
Whether you downloaded a legal copy depends on whether the party offering the download had the right to do so. Whether that is the case may not be apparent. The first question is: What duty does someone have to check the provenance of content or data?
Torrents of current movies and the like are very obviously not authorized. For older movies, that becomes less clear. The web contains much unauthorized content. For example, the news stories that people copy/past on Lemmy. What duty is there to determine the copyright status of the content before using such data?
When researchers and developers share datasets, what duty do they have to check how the contents were obtained by whoever assembled it?
What happens when something was wrongly included in a dataset? Is that a problem only for the original curator, or also for everyone who got a copy?
What about streams, live TV, radio, and such things? Are you allowed to record those for training or not?
While Fair Use is a broad limitation/exemption, it’s still concerned with specific exemptions.
That’s not quite right. Ultimately, Fair Use derives from the US Constitution; from the copyright clause but also freedom of speech. Copyright law spells out 4 factors that must be taken into account. But courts may also consider other factors. There is also no set way in which these factors have to be weighed. It’s very open.
Well, it is. In the United States, willful copyright infringement
There are minimum conditions before prosecution is possible. I think uploading can always be prosecuted.
No, copyright should be toned down. Preferably for regular citizens as well and not just the industry.
Well, over the last few decades it has only been going in the other direction.
How does this fit together with calling copyright infringement theft?
Let me make a suggestion. This is your real opinion. This is what you believe based on what you see. The rest is just slogans by the copyright industry, which you repeat without thinking. The problem is that you are basically shouting yourself down; your own opinion. The media, a big part of the copyright industry, puts these slogans out. Their lobbyists demand favors and harsher laws from politicians. And when the politicians look at what voters think, they hear these slogans. That’s one thing I mean when I say the copyright industry defrauds us.
Airbus pays like 100x the price for the same set of nuts and bolts than someone else. A kitchen appliance for industrial use costs like 3x the price of an end user kitchen appliance. Because it’s more sturdy and made for 24/7 use.
Exactly, they don’t pay more for the same thing. It’s almost exclusive to the copyright industry.
People do have to pay more if they license a picture to show to their 20 million customers or use it in an advertising campaign, than I do for putting it up in the hallway.
Actually, even in the copyright industry, such terms are from universal. Of course, you will have to pay more for the right to make copies than for a single copy. And even more for the exclusive copyright. Those things are different. However, it’s usually a flat fee. Can you figure out what economic reasons might exist for a creator being paid per copy or per viewer?
No exceptions, no licensing, no fees. This is strictly to avoid bad things like doxxing, ruining people’s lives…
“No exceptions” means, for example, that a LLM would not be able to answer questions about politicians, actors, musicians, maybe not even about historical figures.
You said that there should be a way that you can remove your personal data from the training set. That implies that an AI company can offer money in exchange for people not removing their data. That’s basically a licensing fee, however it is framed.
On second thought, I believe many celebrities, business people, politicians, … will gladly offer more training data that makes them look. They’d only remove data that makes them look bad. Sort of like how the GDPR works. Far from demanding a licensing fee, they’d pay money to be known by the AI.
I’ve told you how my server was targeted by Alibaba and it nearly took down the database. […] But I’m prevented from exercising my rights.
I agree that the situation is far from ideal. But let me point out that you do not have a right to other people’s computer services. That’s the issue with Alibaba hitting your server, right? It’s a difficult issue. Mind that an opt-out from AI training does not actually address this.
This application of Fair Use is in favour of the feudal lord companies and to the detriment of the average person.
How so?
People do that all the time.
Sarcasm Identification
That sounds nice. Can we run it on a microcontroller so I can wear it as an amulet around my neck? It’d certainly help in everyday situations, once I forget sarcasm doesn’t just work on random strangers and it’d light up and tell them I’m being sarcastic and not a weird idiot?!
