They do seem to be paying for it (as per the 1.5Bil lawsuit yesterday and them now purchasing books and licensing from media companies).
Whether we think they're paying enough is another question, but "I'm paying for content so can protect it" doesn't seem inconsistent.
We may decide that giving models away for free means they don't have to license content (judging by HN comments), but currently that doesn't seem to be the case as Meta is facing lawsuits for its open models.
Fair, but isn't "illegal" access what they're talking about in OP?
It does seem to be becoming the norm for AI companies to licence premium content in America, judging by the deals they're making. It doesn't seem to be done by the international distillers. It's a cost that American open models will seem to have to pay but not international.
Because model output is probably far closer to software or a licensed work which possibly has greater protections than it is to copyright. There is far less possibility of fair use, it might be protected by patents, license or reverse engineering laws.
In any case the laws are being written now, but I doubt these will have worse protection than software does, which has far better protections than copyright
> I doubt these will have worse protection than software does, which has far better protections than copyright
Software is protected by copyright. Some software may also be protected by patents, but last time I checked, AI generated output of any kind was not patentable.
Distillation isn't a copy. Distillation is more akin to "clean room" implementation.
Also note that the OpenAI/Anthropic argument is that the model training is sufficiently transformative to satisfy the fair use of the original content for training.
By that same argument, when distilling the distillers aren't using the original content the OpenAI/Anthropic models were trained on - the distillers are interacting only with the "sufficiently transformed" content of the OpenAI/Anthropic models and are normally paying for that.
There is also that old phonebook rule that facts can't be copyrighted. So, if i asked the model about bunch of phone numbers, i can publish the resulting list, can train my model on it, etc. Such approach doesn't allow to reproduce copyrighted works of course - and as we know the AI output isn't copyrightable, so it looks like basically any output i get i can use whatever way i like.
Let's assume model output can be claimed by copyright or some form IP. You can't really patent it, as the output isn't a novel idea or process, much like you don't patent a book or a movie. But for arguments sake, let's agree it is some kind of IP.
Who are you saying owns that IP? The people who trained the model? The people who ran the model? The people who wrote the prompt? The person who paid for all of that to happen?
If the model output is owned by the person prompting it and paying for the tokens, what's the problem here?
If the model output is owned by the trainer of the model, that's a big nasty can of worms.
LLM outputs are not copyrightable. At least that’s the current established legal precedent in the US. The only question is whether the user owns the copyright without significantly transforming the output but that’s not really relevant in those specific situation.
I mean otherwise it’s a very slippery slope, effectively it would give Anthropic the ownership of any code generated by its models..
They do seem to be paying for it (as per the 1.5Bil lawsuit yesterday and them now purchasing books and licensing from media companies).
Whether we think they're paying enough is another question, but "I'm paying for content so can protect it" doesn't seem inconsistent.
We may decide that giving models away for free means they don't have to license content (judging by HN comments), but currently that doesn't seem to be the case as Meta is facing lawsuits for its open models.
(Obligatory stratechery piece: https://stratechery.com/2026/whos-afraid-of-chinese-models/ )
The judge found their use is fair use. They are paying not for their use of the content, they are paying for using illegal copies of the content.
The same principle can be applied to distillation - it is a fair use. You just shouldn't use illegal ways to access the models being distilled.
To the commenter below: if it is illegal - has the police/FBI report been made? Otherwise it is just a civil court matter.
Fair, but isn't "illegal" access what they're talking about in OP?
It does seem to be becoming the norm for AI companies to licence premium content in America, judging by the deals they're making. It doesn't seem to be done by the international distillers. It's a cost that American open models will seem to have to pay but not international.
6 replies →
Because model output is probably far closer to software or a licensed work which possibly has greater protections than it is to copyright. There is far less possibility of fair use, it might be protected by patents, license or reverse engineering laws.
In any case the laws are being written now, but I doubt these will have worse protection than software does, which has far better protections than copyright
> I doubt these will have worse protection than software does, which has far better protections than copyright
Software is protected by copyright. Some software may also be protected by patents, but last time I checked, AI generated output of any kind was not patentable.
Distillation isn't a copy. Distillation is more akin to "clean room" implementation.
Also note that the OpenAI/Anthropic argument is that the model training is sufficiently transformative to satisfy the fair use of the original content for training.
By that same argument, when distilling the distillers aren't using the original content the OpenAI/Anthropic models were trained on - the distillers are interacting only with the "sufficiently transformed" content of the OpenAI/Anthropic models and are normally paying for that.
There is also that old phonebook rule that facts can't be copyrighted. So, if i asked the model about bunch of phone numbers, i can publish the resulting list, can train my model on it, etc. Such approach doesn't allow to reproduce copyrighted works of course - and as we know the AI output isn't copyrightable, so it looks like basically any output i get i can use whatever way i like.
Software is protected by the DMCA, patents, licenses, EULAs, all of those aren't there for books. I doubt new laws won't be written for model outputs.
Also, if model output distillation is shown as some form of reverse engineering I assume the DMCA can apply
5 replies →
Let's assume model output can be claimed by copyright or some form IP. You can't really patent it, as the output isn't a novel idea or process, much like you don't patent a book or a movie. But for arguments sake, let's agree it is some kind of IP.
Who are you saying owns that IP? The people who trained the model? The people who ran the model? The people who wrote the prompt? The person who paid for all of that to happen?
If the model output is owned by the person prompting it and paying for the tokens, what's the problem here?
If the model output is owned by the trainer of the model, that's a big nasty can of worms.
Why would this be the case. Why would software output from a model magically have greater protection than the software the model trained on.
LLM outputs are not copyrightable. At least that’s the current established legal precedent in the US. The only question is whether the user owns the copyright without significantly transforming the output but that’s not really relevant in those specific situation.
I mean otherwise it’s a very slippery slope, effectively it would give Anthropic the ownership of any code generated by its models..