Post B09YbzGWnzhA4lhr8a by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
(DIR) More posts by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
(DIR) Post #B07x2f4bzrBhqySt6G by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-11T06:17:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
According to @pluralistic, copyright offices around the world have published clarifications that media created by generative models is not subject to copyright law. Not text, not images, not audio or video, and not code.So every generative model that outputs media ought to add a public domain notice (eg CC0) to anything it produces. Either visibly within the media, or in metadata.#PolicyNZ #copyright #PublicDomain #CreativeCommons #CC0
(DIR) Post #B07xurVjyDLE46zzs0 by gwilymgj@mastodon.social
2025-11-11T06:26:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @pluralistic whaaaaa! Mind blown, is this true? Attribution please.
(DIR) Post #B09MUgQtEDMuBpItiy by jcolag@mastodon.social
2025-11-11T22:37:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey That may not hold up. Yes, you need a human creator to secure copyright, as evidenced by the "monkey selfie" debacle. However, LLMs sort of extrude "content slurry," so their output is *also* not eligible for copyright because it's just other stuff, analogous to photographing a page of a novel.You're on the hook if the LLM violated somebody's copyright, which isn't a great match for public licenses.
(DIR) Post #B09TVL8aaWM0730J9s by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-11T23:55:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jcolag > You're on the hook if the LLM violated somebody's copyrightIANAL, but I've seen no strong argument for why copyright enforcement ought to apply to the creation of generative models. See Cory Doctorow's piece on the pros and cons of policing web scraping;https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/25/deep-scrape/#steering-with-the-windshield-wipers> which isn't a great match for public licensesWhich is why I proposed using a public domain notice. They're not licenses, they just disclaim any copyright restriction on the new work itself.
(DIR) Post #B09YbzGWnzhA4lhr8a by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-12T00:53:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gwilymgj > Attribution please"... the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts."#USCopyrightOffice, Jan 2025https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html#MOLE #AI #copyright@pluralistic
(DIR) Post #B0ATRIi9rSzcaTfuTI by jcolag@mastodon.social
2025-11-12T11:29:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Yes, I read it when it came out. It's (probably) Fair Use to train an AI. But it's almost never Fair Use, though, to use elements of works to create a replacement for those works for non-personal use.It's fine for you to take that risk. But the companies advising you to risk it opens them up to inciting "copyright laundering."(And that ignores the "if a person didn't find it worth making, it's not worth taking seriously" holy wars...)
(DIR) Post #B0BIOR2fWhY7DbexSS by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-12T21:00:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jcolag> Yes, I read it when it came out. It's (probably) Fair Use to train an AI> But it's almost never Fair Use, though, to use elements of works to create a replacement for those works for non-personal usePick one. If it's Fair Use to create a generative model, surely it's also Fair Use to use whatever it generates? What legal basis would there be for a copyright claim on that output? Especially if the output itself is not subject to copyright restrictions.
(DIR) Post #B0BRGFeYswLxARYY7c by jcolag@mastodon.social
2025-11-12T22:39:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey To be blunt, if you think that Fair Use has nothing to do with context, then we're not having a serious conversation and I'm wasting my time.
(DIR) Post #B0BbTAixWPBbBcPeUa by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-13T00:34:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jcolag> if you think that Fair Use has nothing to do with context, then we're not having a serious conversationOf course it does. What I'm asking is why you think it can be Fair Use to develop a model but not to use its output. What's the difference in your mind between these two contexts, as it pertains to copyright.
(DIR) Post #B0CcrYKpgOeiTbHFho by jcolag@mastodon.social
2025-11-13T12:24:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Congratulations, you've made me regret trying to be polite, so let's try another tack.If you don't see different uses as (tautologically) DIFFERENT USES, then you're willfully ignorant and your trying to make that my problem does not endear you to me.You could have read up on how copyright and Fair Use work. You have chosen, instead, to demand that I defend it without any understanding beyond attempts to extrapolate from somebody's opinion piece.Go waste somebody else's time.
(DIR) Post #B0DVgVls9fBeVKyHeC by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-13T22:39:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jcolag Ah, so you can't actually back up your hot take with an argument, so instead you resort to tu quoque. Noted.
(DIR) Post #B0DXQBSY6aUamfH7OC by jcolag@mastodon.social
2025-11-13T22:58:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Yes, it's obviously because I'm trying to trick you, and not because you're a self-absorbed jackass who thinks that I owe you something.Look, if you want to pay my hourly consulting rate, I'll pretend to give a damn about your ignorant ramblings. But you're not doing that, so it's your responsibility to learn, not mine, so go do that instead of wasting my time with harassment.I've been polite, even kind. I've been blunt. I've now reported you. Grow up and go away.