Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is “theft” misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they’re extracting general patterns and concepts - the “Bob Dylan-ness” or “Hemingway-ness” - not copying specific text or images.
This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in “vector space”. When generating new content, the AI isn’t recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it’s learned.
This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It’s more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others’ work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can’t be owned - only particular expressions of them.
Moreover, there’s precedent for this kind of use being considered “transformative” and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.
While it’s understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it “theft” is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn’t make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.
For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744
Though I am not a lawyer by training, I have been involved in such debates personally and professionally for many years. This post is unfortunately misguided. Copyright law makes concessions for education and creativity, including criticism and satire, because we recognize the value of such activities for human development. Debates over the excesses of copyright in the digital age were specifically about humans finding the application of copyright to the internet and all things digital too restrictive for their educational, creative, and yes, also their entertainment needs. So any anti-copyright arguments back then were in the spirit specifically protecting the average person and public-serving non-profit institutions, such as digital archives and libraries, from big copyright owners who would sue and lobby for total control over every file in their catalogue, sometimes in the process severely limiting human potential.
AI’s ingesting of text and other formats is “learning” in name only, a term borrowed by computer scientists to describe a purely computational process. It does not hold the same value socially or morally as the learning that humans require to function and progress individually and socially.
AI is not a person (unless we get definitive proof of a conscious AI, or are willing to grant every implementation of a statistical model personhood). Also AI it is not vital to human development and as such one could argue does not need special protections or special treatment to flourish. AI is a product, even more clearly so when it is proprietary and sold as a service.
Unlike past debates over copyright, this is not about protecting the little guy or organizations with a social mission from big corporate interests. It is the opposite. It is about big corporate interests turning human knowledge and creativity into a product they can then use to sell services to - and often to replace in their jobs - the very humans whose content they have ingested.
See, the tables are now turned and it is time to realize that copyright law, for all its faults, has never been only or primarily about protecting large copyright holders. It is also about protecting your average Joe from unauthorized uses of their work. More specifically uses that may cause damage, to the copyright owner or society at large. While a very imperfect mechanism, it is there for a reason, and its application need not be the end of AI. There’s a mechanism for individual copyright owners to grant rights to specific uses: it’s called licensing and should be mandatory in my view for the development of proprietary LLMs at least.
TL;DR: AI is not human, it is a product, one that may augment some tasks productively, but is also often aimed at replacing humans in their jobs - this makes all the difference in how we should balance rights and protections by law.
AI are people, my friend. /s
But, really, I think people should be able to run algorithms on whatever data they want. It’s whether the output is sufficiently different or “transformative” that matters (and other laws like using people’s likeness). Otherwise, I think the laws will get complex and nonsensical once you start adding special cases for “AI.” And I’d bet if new laws are written, they’d be written by lobbiests to further erode the threat of competition (from free software, for instance).
What do you think “ingesting” means if not learning?
Bear in mind that training AI does not involve copying content into its database, so copyright is not an issue. AI is simply predicting the next token /word based on statistics.
You can train AI in a book and it will give you information from the book - information is not copyrightable. You can read a book a talk about its contents on TV - not illegal if you’re a human, should it be illegal if you’re a machine?
There may be moral issues on training on someone’s hard gathered knowledge, but there is no legislature against it. Reading books and using that knowledge to provide information is legal. If you try to outlaw Automating this process by computers, there will be side effects such as search engines will no longer be able to index data.
Bear in mind that training AI does not involve copying content into its database, so copyright is not an issue.
Wrong. The infringement is in obtaining the data and presenting it to the AI model during the training process. It makes no difference that the original work is not retained in the model’s weights afterwards.
You can train AI in a book and it will give you information from the book - information is not copyrightable. You can read a book a talk about its contents on TV - not illegal if you’re a human, should it be illegal if you’re a machine?
Yes, because copyright law is intended to benefit human creativity.
If you try to outlaw Automating this process by computers, there will be side effects such as search engines will no longer be able to index data.
Wrong. Search engines retain a minimal amount of the indexed website’s data, and the purpose of the search engine is to generate traffic to the website, providing benefit for both the engine and the website (increased visibility, the opportunity to show ads to make money). Banning the use of copyrighted content for AI training (which uses the entire copyrighted work and whose purpose is to replace the organizations whose work is being used) will have no effect.
What do you mean that the search engines contain minimal amount of site’s data? Obviously it needs to index all contents to make it searchable. If you search for keywords within an article, you can find the article, therefore all of it needs to be indexed.
Indexing is nothing more than “presenting data to the algorithm” so it’d be against the law to index a site under your proposed legislation.
Wrong. The infringement is in obtaining the data and presenting it to the AI model during the training process. It makes no difference that the original work is not retained in the model’s weights afterwards.
This is an interesting take, I’d be inclined to agree, but you’re still facing the problem of how to distinguish training AI from indexing for search purposes. I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways.
“but how are we supposed to keep making billions of dollars without unscrupulous intellectual property theft?! line must keep going up!!”
The ingredient thing is a bit amusing, because that’s basically how one of the major fast food chains got to be so big (I can’t remember which one it was ATM though; just that it wasn’t McDonald’s). They cut out the middle-man and just bought their own farm to start growing the vegetables and later on expanded to raising the animals used for the meat as well.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression, so we can have human culture and shit.
The idea of a “teensy” exception so that we can “advance” into a dark age of creative pointlessness and regurgitated slop, where humans doing the fun part has been made “unnecessary” by the unstoppable progress of “thinking” machines, would be hilarious, if it weren’t depressing as fuck.
The whole point of copyright in the first place, is to encourage creative expression
…within a capitalistic framework.
Humans are creative creatures and will express themselves regardless of economic incentives. We don’t have to transmute ideas into capital just because they have “value”.
You’re not wrong.
The kind of art humanity creates is skewed a lot by the need for it to marketable, and then sold in order to be worth doing.
But copyright is better than nothing, and this exemption would straight up be even worse than nothing.
I’d agree, but here’s one issue with that: we live in reality, not in a post-capitalist dreamworld.
Creativity takes up a lot of time from the individual, while a lot of us are already working two or even three jobs, all on top of art. A lot of us have to heavily compromise on a lot of things, or even give up our dreams because we don’t have the time for that. Sure, you get the occasional “legendary metal guitarist practiced so much he even went to the toilet with a guitar”, but many are so tired from their main job, they instead just give up.
Developing game while having a full-time job feels like crunching 24/7, while only around 4 is going towards that goal, which includes work done on my smartphone at my job. Others just outright give up. This shouldn’t be the normal for up and coming artists.
Honestly, that’s why open source AI is such a good thing for small creatives. Hate it or love it, anyone wielding AI with the intention to make new expression will be much more safe and efficient to succeed until they can grow big enough to hire a team with specialists. People often look at those at the top but ignore the things that can grow from the bottom and actually create more creative expression.
One issue is, many open source AI also tries to ape whatever the big ones are doing at the moment, with the most outrageous example is one that generates a timelapse for AI art.
There’s also tools that especially were created with artists in mind, but they’re less popular due to the average person cannot use it as easily as the prompter machines, nor promise the end of “people with fake jobs” (boomers like generative AI for this reason).
That’s why we should look for good solutions to societal problems, and not fall back on bad “solutions” just because that’s what we’re used to. I’m not against the idea of copyright existing. But copyright as it exists today is stifling and counterproductive for most creative endeavors. We do live in reality, but I don’t believe it is the only possible reality. We’re not getting to Star Trek Space Communism™ anytime soon and honestly I like the idea of owning stuff. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t concrete steps we can and should take right now in the present reality to make things better. And for that to happen we need to get our priorities and philosophies straight. Philosophies which for me include a robust public commons, the inability to own ideas outright, and the ability to take and transform art and culture. Otherwise, we’re just falling into the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” mindset but for art and culture.
Humans are indeed creative by nature, we like making things. What we don’t naturally do is publish, broadcast and preserve our work.
Society is iterative. What we build today, we build mostly out of what those who came before us built. We tell our versions of our forefathers’ stories, we build new and improved versions of our forefather’s machines.
A purely capitalistic society would have infinite copyright and patent durations, this idea is mine, it belongs to me, no one can ever have it, my family and only my family will profit from it forever. Nothing ever improves because improving on an old idea devalues the old idea, and the landed gentry can’t allow that.
A purely communist society immediately enters whatever anyone creates into the public domain. The guy who revolutionizes energy production making everyone’s lives better is paid the same as a janitor. So why go through all the effort? Just sweep the floors.
At least as designed, our idea of copyright is a compromise. If you have an idea, we will grant you a limited time to exclusively profit from your idea. You may allow others to also profit at your discretion; you can grant licenses, but that’s up to you. After the time is up, your idea enters the public domain, and becomes the property and heritage of humanity, just like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Others are free to reproduce and iterate upon your ideas.
I think you have your janitor example backwards. Spending my time revolutionizing energy productions sounds much more enjoyable than sweeping floors. Same with designing an effective floor sweeping robot.
Sorry buddy, but that capitalistic framework is where we all have to exist for the forseeable future.
Giving corporations more power is not going to help us end that.
Can’t say you’re wrong, however the forseeable future is less than two centuries, and our failure to navigate our way out of capitalism towards something more mutualistic figures largely into our imminent doom.
That’s the reason we got copyright, but I don’t think that’s the only reason we could want copyright.
Two good reasons to want copyright:
- Accurate attribution
- Faithful reproduction
Accurate attribution:
Open source thrives on the notion that: if there’s a new problem to be solved, and it requires a new way of thinking to solve it, someone will start a project whose goal is not just to build new tools to solve the problem but also to attract other people who want to think about the problem together.
If anyone can take the codebase and pretend to be the original author, that will splinter the conversation and degrade the ability of everyone to find each other and collaborate.
In the past, this was pretty much impossible because you could check a search engine or social media to find the truth. But with enshittification and bots at every turn, that looks less and less guaranteed.
Faithful reproduction:
If I write a book and make some controversial claims, yet it still provokes a lot of interest, people might be inclined to publish slightly different versions to advance their own opinions.
Maybe a version where I seem to be making an abhorrent argument, in an effort to mitigate my influence. Maybe a version where I make an argument that the rogue publisher finds more palatable, to use my popularity to boost their own arguments.
This actually happened during the early days of publishing, by the way! It’s part of the reason we got copyright in the first place.
And again, it seems like this would be impossible to get away with now, buuut… I’m not so sure anymore.
—
Personally:
I favor piracy in the sense that I think everyone has a right to witness culture even if they can’t afford the price of admission.
And I favor remixing because the cultural conversation should be an active read-write two-way street, no just passive consumption.
But I also favor some form of licensing, because I think we have a duty to respect the integrity of the work and the voice of the creator.
I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!” I think anyone who compares OpenAI to pirates (favorably) is unwittingly helping the next set of feudal tech lords build a wall around the entirety of human creativity, and they won’t realize their mistake until the real toll booths open up.
I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!”
I’ve never done this. But I have taken lessons from people for instruments, listened to bands I like, and then created and played songs that certainly are influences by all of that. I’ve also taken a lot of art classes, and studied other people’s painting styles and then created things from what I’ve learned, and said “look at what I made!” Which is far more akin to what AI is doing that what you are implying here.
So what if its closer? Its still not an accurate description, because thats not what AI does.
Because what they are describing is just straight up theft, while what I describes is so much closer to how one trains and ai. I’m afraid that what comes out of this ai hysteria is that copyright gets more strict and humans copying style even becomes illegal.
I’m sympathetic to the reflexive impulse to defend OpenAI out of a fear that this whole thing results in even worse copyright law.
I, too, think copyright law is already smothering the cultural conversation and we’re potentially only a couple of legislative acts away from having “property of Disney” emblazoned on our eyeballs.
But don’t fall into their trap of seeing everything through the lens of copyright!
We have other laws!
We can attack OpenAI on antitrust, likeness rights, libel, privacy, and labor laws.
Being critical of OpenAI doesn’t have to mean siding with the big IP bosses. Don’t accept that framing.
Their framing of how AI works is grossly inaccurate. I just corrected that.
Well that all doesn’t matter much. If AI is used to cause harm, it should be regulated. If that frustrates you then go get the laws changed that allow shitty companies to ruin good ideas.
I never said anything about leaving ai unregulated. I never said anything about being frustrated. And its likely you asking for laws to be changed, not me.
I’m not even sure you’re responding to my post.
You drank the kool-aid.
I hear you about the cheese bro.
Are the models that OpenAI creates open source? I don’t know enough about LLMs but if ChatGPT wants exemptions from the law, it result in a public good (emphasis on public).
Nothing about OpenAI is open-source. The name is a misdirection.
If you use my IP without my permission and profit it from it, then that is IP theft, whether or not you republish a plagiarized version.
So I guess every reaction and review on the internet that is ad supported or behind a payroll is theft too?
So, is the Internet caring about copyright now? Decades of Napster, Limewire, BitTorrent, Piratebay, etc, but we care now because it’s a big corporation doing it?
Personally for me its about the double standard. When we perform small scale “theft” to experience things we’d be willing to pay for if we could afford it and the money funded the artists, they throw the book at us. When they build a giant machine that takes all of our work and turns it into an automated record scratcher that they will profit off of and replace our creative jobs with, that’s just good business. I don’t think it’s okay that they get to do things like implement DRM because IP theft is so terrible, but then when they do it systemically and against the specific licensing of the content that has been posted to the internet, that’s protected in the eyes of the law
Kill a person, that’s a tragedy. Kill a hundred thousand people, they make you king.
Steal $10, you go to jail. Steal $10 billion, they make you Senator.
If you do crime big enough, it becomes good.
If you do crime big enough, it becomes good.
No, no it doesn’t.
It might become legal, or tolerated, or the laws might become unenforceable.
But that doesn’t make it good, on the contrary, it makes it even worse.
No shit
I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they’ve been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.
They throw the book at us
Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.
It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.
People don’t like when you punch down. When a 13 year old illegally downloaded a Limp Bizkit album no one cared. When corporations worth billions funded by venture capital systematically harvest the work of small creators (often with appropriate license) to sell a product people tend to care.
Bullshit. AI are not human. We shouldn’t treat them as such. AI are not creative. They just regurgitate what they are trained on. We call what it does “learning”, but that doesn’t mean we should elevate what they do to be legally equal to human learning.
It’s this same kind of twisted logic that makes people think Corporations are People.
The argument seem most commonly from people on fediverse (which I happen to agree with) is really not about what current copyright laws and treaties say / how they should be interpreted, but how people view things should be (even if it requires changing laws to make it that way).
And it fundamentally comes down to economics - the study of how resources should be distributed. Apart from oligarchs and the wannabe oligarchs who serve as useful idiots for the real oligarchs, pretty much everyone wants a relatively fair and equal distribution of wealth amongst the people (differing between left and right in opinion on exactly how equal things should be, but there is still some common ground). Hardly anyone really wants serfdom or similar where all the wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few (obviously it’s a spectrum of how concentrated, but very few people want the extreme position to the right).
Depending on how things go, AI technologies have the power to serve humanity and lift everyone up equally if they are widely distributed, removing barriers and breaking existing ‘moats’ that let a few oligarchs hoard a lot of resources. Or it could go the other way - oligarchs are the only ones that have access to the state of the art model weights, and use this to undercut whatever they want in the economy until they own everything and everyone else rents everything from them on their terms.
The first scenario is a utopia scenario, and the second is a dystopia, and the way AI is regulated is the fork in the road between the two. So of course people are going to want to cheer for regulation that steers towards the utopia.
That means things like:
- Fighting back when the oligarchs try to talk about ‘AI Safety’ meaning that there should be no Open Source models, and that they should tightly control how and for what the models can be used. The biggest AI Safety issue is that we end up in a dystopian AI-fueled serfdom, and FLOSS models and freedom for the common people to use them actually helps to reduce the chances of this outcome.
- Not allowing ‘AI washing’ where oligarchs can take humanities collective work, put it through an algorithm, and produce a competing thing that they control - unless everyone has equal access to it. One policy that would work for this would be that if you create a model based on other people’s work, and want to use that model for a commercial purpose, then you must publicly release the model and model weights. That would be a fair trade-off for letting them use that information for training purposes.
Fundamentally, all of this is just exacerbating cracks in the copyright system as a policy. I personally think that a better system would look like this:
- Everyone gets a Universal Basic Income paid, and every organisation and individual making profit pays taxes in to fund the UBI (in proportion to their profits).
- All forms of intellectual property rights (except trademarks) are abolished - copyright, patents, and trade secrets are no longer enforced by the law. The UBI replaces it as compensation to creators.
- It is illegal to discriminate against someone for publicly disclosing a work they have access to, as long as they didn’t accept valuable consideration to make that disclosure. So for example, if an OpenAI employee publicly released the model weights for one of OpenAI’s models without permission from anyone, it would be illegal for OpenAI to demote / fire / refuse to promote / pay them differently on that basis, and for any other company to factor that into their hiring decision. There would be exceptions for personally identifiable information (e.g. you can’t release the client list or photos of real people without consequences), and disclosure would have to be public (i.e. not just to a competitor, it has to be to everyone) and uncompensated (i.e. you can’t take money from a competitor to release particular information).
If we had that policy, I’d be okay for AI companies to be slurping up everything and training model weights.
However, with the current policies, it is pushing us towards the dystopic path where AI companies take what they want and never give anything back.
You should look at the energy cost of AI. It’s not a miracle machine.
I agree that this is a major concern, especially if non-renewable energy is used, and until the production process for computer technology and solar panels is much more of a circular economy. More renewable energy and circular economies, and following the sun for AI training and inference (it isn’t going to be low latency anyway, so if you need AI inference in the northern hemisphere night, just do it on the other side of the world) could greatly decrease the impact.
This take is correct although I would make one addition. It is true that copyright violation doesn’t happen when copyrighted material is inputted or when models are trained. While the outputs of these models are not necessarily copyright violations, it is possible for them to violate copyright. The same standards for violation that apply to humans should apply to these models.
I entirely reject the claims that there should be one standard for humans and another for these models. Every time this debate pops up, people claim some province based on ‘intelligence’ or ‘conscience’ or ‘understanding’ or ‘awareness’. This is a meaningless argument because we have no clear understanding about what those things are. I’m not claiming anything about the nature of these models. I’m just pointing out that people love to apply an undefined standard to them.
We should apply the same copyright standards to people, models, corporations, and old-school algorithms.
While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.
Operating system have been used to commit copyright infringement much more effectively and massively by copying copyrighted material verbatim.
OS vendors are not liable, the people who make and distribute the copies are. The same applies for Word processors, image editors etc.
You are for a massive expansion on the scope of copyright limiting the freedoms of the general public not just AI corps or tech corps.
Those analogies don’t make any sense.
Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?
Yes they do.
Which is why you want an agreement to make them liable for copyright infringement (plagiarism is not a crime itself).
You would have to pay for distributing copyright infringing material whether created by AI or humans or just straight up copied.
I don’t care if AI will be used,commercially or otherwise.
I am worried about further limitations being placed upon the general public (not “creatives”/publishers/AI corps) either by reinterpretation of existing laws, amendment of existing laws or legislation of brand new rights (for copyright holders/creators, not the general public).
I don’t even care who wins, the “creatives” or tech/AI, just that we don’t get further shafted.
Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.
It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.
I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.
I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.
OS vendors aren’t selling¹ what users copy into the clipboard.
¹ Well, Microsoft probably is, especially with that recall bullshit, and I don’t trust Google and Apple not to do it either… but if any of them is doing it they should get fined into bankruptcy.
Neither are AI vendors. We have locally hosted AI models and they don’t contain what they output. You can tell by the actual size.
Exactly, there are blatant examples of direct plagiarism spat out by these LLMs.
Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is “theft” misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology.
Or maybe they’re not talking about copyright law. They’re talking about basic concepts. Maybe copyright law needs to be brought into the 21st century?
“No, not like that!”
I personally am down for this punch-up between Alphabet and Sony. Microsoft v. Disney.
🍿
Surely it’s coming. We have The music publishing cartel vs Suno already.
Honestly, if this somehow results in regulators being like “fuck it, piracy is legal now” it won’t negatively impact me in any way…
Corporations have abused copyright law for decades, they’ve ruined the internet, they’ve ruined media, they’ve ruined video games. I want them to lose more than anything else.
The shitty and likely situation is they’ll be like “fuck it corporate piracy is legal but individuals doing it is still a crime”.
I think that training models on scraped internet data should be legal if and only if those models’ weights are required to be open-source. It’d be like slapping a copyleft license on the internet - you can do what you want with public data, but you have to give what you use it for back to the public.
I don’t view free-use models as open-source. Open-source means I can rebuild it from scratch and I can’t because I don’t know what the training data is, or have access to it.
