Comment by enord
3 years ago
I’m completely flabbergasted by the number of comments implying copyright concepts such as “fair use” or “derivative work” apply to trained ML models. Copyright is for _people_, as are the entailing rights, responsibilities and exemptions. This has gone far beyond anthropomorphising and we need to like get it together, man!
You act like computers and ML models aren't just tools used by people.
What did I write to give you that impression?
My initial interpretation was that you're saying fair use is irrelevant to the situation because machine learning models aren't themselves legal persons. But, fair use doesn't solely apply to manual creation - use of traditional algorithms (e.g: the snippets, caching, and thumbnailing done by search engines) is still covered by fair use. To my understanding, that's why ronsor pointed out that ML models are tools used by people (and those people can give a fair use defense).
Possibly you instead meant that fair use is relevant, but people are wording remarks in a way that suggests the model itself is giving a fair use defence to copyright infringement, rather than the persons training or using it?
6 replies →
No one is saying a model is the legal entity. The legal entities are still people and corporations.
Oh come on, you’re being insincere. Wether or not the model is learning from the work just like people is hotly debated as if it would make a difference. Fair use is even brought up. Fair use! Even if it applied, these training sets collate all of everything
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills TBQH