Submitted by markhachman t3_10bddey in MachineLearning
marr75 t1_j4cuv4t wrote
Reply to comment by Ronny_Jotten in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman
I read the 30 word OP here and the jukebox blog post and have read multiple analyses of AGI vs Google. The best I can guess, you're referring to the jukebox post, which only references IP in the sentence:
> As generative modeling across various domains continues to advance, we are also conducting research into issues like bias and intellectual property rights
So, I question if you know what discussion you're replying in, if you yourself read the post, or if I'm just so confused I can't believe my own reading comprehension anymore (which could happen any day now).
The multi-part fair use test established in AGI vs Google is widely held to be applicable to AI and ML models. There are no guarantees when it comes to credible legal theories and the winds can shift after a Supreme Court decision or two, but that's the state of the art today.
Ronny_Jotten t1_j4d824g wrote
You're right, sorry, I had several tabs open on a similar subject... the post I was referring to is this:
> The multi-part fair use test established in AGI vs Google is widely held to be applicable to AI and ML models.
The US four-part fair use test was established long before AGI v. Google: in the 19th century in Folsom v. Marsh. It was encoded into copyright law in 1976. It's applicable to everything.
The case only decided that Google's specific book service did in fact pass the test. The most important aspect is that the judge found that there was no economic damage to the book authors, that it did not replace the books or negatively impact the market for books.
The decision is not applicable to other projects that may be substantially different in character. I'm sure OpenAI's lawyers are hoping that DALL-E will be considered to be equivalent to Google's book search - that they have fair use rights to digitize copyrighted material without permission, and publish something transformed that only contains "snippets" of it. But they will have to get around the fourth factor. Who will commission an expensive original artwork from Greg Rutkowski, when they can simply type a prompt including "in the style of..." and get something substantially similar, for less than a nickel? Will companies use GPL3 code in their products, when they can get a mashed-up facsimile with the restrictive license removed? The question of fair use in the context of generative neural networks is far from settled; hence the lawsuits in the (other) post.
marr75 t1_j4da0ub wrote
Sure, there will probably be plenty of litigation in the next few years. I find it probable that these suits fail. Sorry for my imprecision on the origin and application of the four-part test. I think we'll just hold our same opinions on the matter coming out so I don't really care enough about this debate to formulate my sentences that carefully or continue.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments