←back to thread

343 points sillysaurusx | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.329s | source
Show context
EMIRELADERO ◴[] No.35028451[source]
I womder, could Facebook take legal action here? While some (most of) the data used to train the model is copyrighted, I don't think the model is. It's the result of a mathematical process applied to a series of facts and works with no more creativity put onto them.
replies(4): >>35028664 #>>35029602 #>>35031189 #>>35033122 #
kuroguro ◴[] No.35028664[source]
That definition would apply to almost anything software produces ^^;

We can already have different licenses for compiled binaries vs the source. Also the output of ML seems to belong to whoever pressed the generate button atm.

replies(2): >>35029260 #>>35044536 #
EMIRELADERO ◴[] No.35029260[source]
> That definition would apply to almost anything software produces

Not really. The reason software can be copyrighted at all is because the actual code (and resulting object code) is creative. Courts have named this threshold the "Structure, sequence and organization" of the work. ML models don't follow any creative SSO the way actual code does.

> Also the output of ML seems to belong to whoever pressed the generate button atm.

The output, it seems to me, is uncopyrightable. Copyright only cares about who provides the creativity for the work at issue, not who put in the effort to make it happen. You may own the copyright to your prompt, but the result is generated entirely by the AI and thus lacks human autorship.

replies(1): >>35031269 #
AlDante2 ◴[] No.35031269[source]
I think that copyright law works differently. Source code is copyright; the expression as compiled code from that source enjoys the same protections. If the model can be copyrighted, the expression of the model in the form of its weights is probably also protected.
replies(1): >>35034085 #
1. EMIRELADERO ◴[] No.35034085[source]
You're correct, but that doesn't disprove my point. I'm saying the model itself is uncopyrightable.