🃏Joker@sh.itjust.works to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 20 hours agoMake illegally trained LLMs public domain as punishmentwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square144fedilinkarrow-up11.28Karrow-down135file-text
arrow-up11.25Karrow-down1external-linkMake illegally trained LLMs public domain as punishmentwww.theregister.com🃏Joker@sh.itjust.works to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 20 hours agomessage-square144fedilinkfile-text
minus-squaregrue@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·5 hours agoJust because something is defined legally instead of technologically, that doesn’t make it vague. The modification violates copyright when the result is a derivative work; no more, no less.
minus-squareyetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·51 minutes agoWhat is a derivative work though? That’s again extremely vague and has been subject to countless lawsuits seeking to determine the bounds.
minus-squarecatloaf@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·34 minutes agoIf your work depends on the original, such that it could not exist without it, it’s derivative. I can easily create a pixel of any arbitrary color, so it’s sufficiently transformative that it’s considered a separate work. The four fair use tests are pretty reliable in making a determination.
Just because something is defined legally instead of technologically, that doesn’t make it vague. The modification violates copyright when the result is a derivative work; no more, no less.
What is a derivative work though? That’s again extremely vague and has been subject to countless lawsuits seeking to determine the bounds.
If your work depends on the original, such that it could not exist without it, it’s derivative.
I can easily create a pixel of any arbitrary color, so it’s sufficiently transformative that it’s considered a separate work.
The four fair use tests are pretty reliable in making a determination.