Comment by tyushk
1 day ago
Licensing. You can't use Gemini Nano weights directly (at least commercial ly) and must interact with them through Android MLKit or similar Google approved runtimes.
You can use Gemma commercially using whatever runtime or framework you can get to run it.
It's not even clear you can license language model weight though.
I'm not a lawyer but the analysis I've read had a pretty strong argument that there's no human creativity involved in the training, which is an entirely automatic process, and as such it cannot be copyrighted in any way (the same way you cannot put a license on a software artifact just because you compiled it yourself, you must have copyright ownership on the source code you're compiling).
IANAL either but the answer likely depends on the jurisdiction
US standards for copyrightability require human creativity and model weights likely don’t have the right kind of human creativity in them to be copyrightable in the US. No court to my knowledge has ruled on the question as yet, but that’s the US Copyright Office’s official stance.
By contrast, standards for copyrightability in the UK are a lot weaker than-and so no court has ruled on the issue in the UK yet either, it seems likely a UK court would hold model weights to be copyrightable
So from Google/Meta/etc’s viewpoint, asserting copyright makes sense, since even if the assertion isn’t legally valid in the US, it likely is in the UK - and not just the UK, many other major economies too. Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand tend to follow UK courts on copyright law not US courts. And many EU countries are closer to the UK than the US on this as well, not necessarily because they follow the UK, often because they’ve reached a similar position based on their own legal traditions
Finally: don’t be surprised if Congress steps in and tries to legislate model weights as copyrightable in the US too, or grants them some sui generis form of legal protection which is legally distinct from copyright but similar to it-I can already hear the lobbyist argument, “US AI industry risks falling behind Europe because copyrightability of AI models in the US is legally uncertain and that legal uncertainty is discouraging investment”-I’m sceptical that is actually true, but something doesn’t have to be true for lobbyists to convince Congress that it is
>don’t be surprised if Congress steps in and tries to legislate model weights as copyrightable in the US too
"Your Honor i didn't copy their weights, i used them to train my models weights"
> US standards for copyrightability require human creativity and model weights likely don’t have the right kind of human creativity in them to be copyrightable in the US. No court to my knowledge has ruled on the question as yet, but that’s the US Copyright Office’s official stance.
Has the US copyright office said that about model weights? I've only heard them saying that about images produced entirely from a prompt to a model.
3 replies →
In that line of reasoning, does it really matter how “close“ jurisdictions are to each other — also considering how what courts rule doesn’t matter as much in countries governed by civil law - but merely the enforcement of the Berne convention? As in, if something is considered to be under copyright in any one of all the signatory countries of it, the others have to respect that?
2 replies →
> It's not even clear you can license language model weight though.
It is clear you can license (give people permissions to) model weights, it is less clear that there is any law protecting them such that they need a license, but since there is always a risk of suit and subsequent loss in the absence of clarity, licenses are at least beneficial in reducing that risk.
That's one of the reasons why they gate Gemini Nano with the "Gemini Nano Program Additional Terms of Service". Even if copyright doesn't subsist in the weights or if using them would be fair use, they still have recourse in breach of contract.
I've wondered about this for a while now (where e.g. some models of HuggingFace require clickwrap license agreements to download, that try to prohibit you from using the model in certain ways.)
It seems to me that if some anonymous ne'er-do-well were to publicly re-host the model files for separate download; and you acquired the files from that person, rather than from Google; then you wouldn't be subject to their license, as you never so much as saw the clickwrap.
(And you wouldn't be committing IP theft by acquiring it from that person, either, because of the non-copyrightability.)
I feel that there must be something wrong with that logic, but I can't for the life of me think of what it is.
The problem is that contracts don’t bind subsequent recipients, copyright does
Google gives the model to X who gives it to Y who gives it to Z. X has a contract with Google, so Google can sue X for breach of contract if they violate its terms. But do Y and Z have such a contract? Probably not. Of course, Google can put language in their contract with X to try to make it bind Y and Z too, but is that language going to be legally effective? More often than not, no. The language may enable Google to successfully sue X over Y and Z’s behaviour, but not successfully sue Y and Z directly. Whereas, with copyright, Y and Z are directly liable for violations just as X is
3 replies →
Why not? Training isn't just "data in/data out". The process for training is continuously tweaked and adjusted. With many of those adjustments being specific to the type of model you are trying to output.
The US copyright office’s position is basically this-under US law, copyrightability requires direct human creativity, an automated training process involves no direct human creativity so cannot produce copyright. Now, we all know there is a lot of creative human effort in selecting what data to use as input, tinkering with hyperparameters, etc - but the copyright office’s position is that doesn’t legally count - creative human effort in overseeing an automated process doesn’t change the fact that the automated process itself doesn’t directly involve any human creativity. So the human creativity in model training fails to make the model copyrightable because it is too indirect
By contrast, UK copyright law accepts the “mere sweat of the brow” doctrine, the mere fact you spent money on training is likely sufficient to make its output copyrightable, UK law doesn’t impose the same requirements for a direct human creative contribution
Doesn't that imply just the training process isn't copyrightable? But weights aren't just training, they're also your source data. And if the training set shows originality in selection, coordination, or arrangement, isn't that copyrightable? So why wouldn't the weights also be copyrightable?
The problem is, can you demonstrate that originality of selection and arrangement actually survives in the trained model? It is legally doubtful.
Nobody knows for sure what the legal answer is, because the question hasn’t been considered by a court - but the consensus of expert legal opinion is copyrightability of models is doubtful under US law, and the kind of argument you make isn’t strong enough to change that. As I said, different case for UK law, nobody really needs your argument there because model weights likely are copyrightable in the UK already
1 reply →
For the same reason GenAI output isn't copyrightable regardless of how much time you spend tweaking your prompts.
Also i'm pretty sure none of the AI companies would really want to touch the concept of having the copyright of source data affect the weight's own copyright, considering all of them pretty much hoover up the entire Internet without caring about those copyrights (and IMO trying to claim that they should be able to ignore the copyrights of training data and also that the GenAI output is not under copyright but at the same trying trying to claim copyright for the weights is dishonest, if not outright leechy).
The weights are mathematical facts. As raw numbers, they are not copyrightable.
4 replies →