cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/8121669

Taggart (@mttaggart) writes:

Japan determines copyright doesn’t apply to LLM/ML training data.

On a global scale, Japan’s move adds a twist to the regulation debate. Current discussions have focused on a “rogue nation” scenario where a less developed country might disregard a global framework to gain an advantage. But with Japan, we see a different dynamic. The world’s third-largest economy is saying it won’t hinder AI research and development. Plus, it’s prepared to leverage this new technology to compete directly with the West.

I am going to live in the sea.

www.biia.com/japan-goes-all-in-copyright-doesnt-apply-to-ai-training/

  • Bitflip@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    Nice, time to train one with all the Nintendo leaks and generate some Zelda art and a new Mario title!

    • ZickZack@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      train one with all the Nintendo leaks

      This is fine

      generate some Zelda art and a new Mario title

      This is copyright infringement.

      The ruling in japan (and as I predict also in other countries) is that the act of training a model (which is just a statistical estimator) is not copyrightable, so cannot be copyright infringement. This is already standard practice for everything else: You cannot copyright a mathematical function, regardless of how much data you use to fit to it (that is sensible: CERN has fit physics models to petabytes worth of data, that doesn’t mean they hold a copyright on laws of nature, they just hold the copyright on the data itself). However, if you generate something that is copyrighted, that item is still copyrighted: It doesn’t matter whether you used an AI image generator, photoshop, or a tattoo gun.

        • ZickZack@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          And that would be completely legal, just like any random guy on deviantart can draw something in the style of e.g. Picasso without getting into trouble (unless of course they claim it was painted by picasso, but that should be obvious).

    • FidiFadi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      Nintendo would have coup the government if the decision made this scenario actually possible.

    • ericjmorey@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Or it leads the way in producing the most useless, misleading bullshit more efficiently. We’ll see.

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Maybe that would finally get them to stop using fax machines.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Not sure this is the flex you think it is. The US health industry utilizes fax to send client health information millions of times a day, and it is considered a secure communication.

        • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I don’t think you realize how boomer Japan is regarding technology in the new Millennium. Their industry tech is always on the curve (especially robotics), but their lifestyle tech is just…god it was like going back 10-15 years in time. They still had as many flip phone commercial and plans as smartphone ones back when I was living there in 2018. Stores in Ginza, one of the most expensive places in Japan, would have “cash only” signs because they didn’t want to learn how to set up a card machine. The older population has really been holding them back.

          They’ve had to digitize a lot of stuff due to Covid (thank god) but me and most people I knew were issued actual paper paycheques we’d have to physically take to the bank for payday. The lines at the bank on the 15th or 25th of the month in Tokyo were something else.

  • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    What’s stopping somebody from making an LLM that can reproduce media that was used in its training with close to 100% accuracy? If that happens, then we’ll have a copyright laundering service.

    • DogWater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 years ago

      Reproducing copywrited works would be a problem. Consuming them is not.

      In your example, a copyright case would be able to move forward and be tested in court. I would think it stands as good of a shot at prevailing in that example. It would be the same as a case against someone who wrote a script for a website to reproduce copyrighted work on command. The difference is this isn’t that. And if and when it does that, the ai can be tuned to prevent it from continuing to do it.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Hi chatgpt7, I like legend of Zelda tears of the second kingdom, please code a similar game but change the colour of the grass from light green to medium light green.

        • DogWater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Again, that’s producing a copyrighted work. That would be illegal. That isn’t the same as inputting the code into the LLM to use as a reference for when someone asks for help coding movement mechanics for a 3rd person action game of their own imagination

    • regbin_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 years ago

      If you make it reproduce copyrighted media, it is a problem.

      As long as the stuff it generates doesn’t resemble any copyrighted works, even if it was trained on copyrighted works, I don’t see why that should be problem.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t even think there’s a problem recreating it, you just can’t distribute it.

        For personal use it’s fine.

        Its not like Disney is suing everyone drawing micky mouse in their personal art workbook

    • Kepabar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      What media is an LLM going to be able to reproduce that I can’t already reproduce with a copy paste?

      • Pirasp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        2 years ago

        That’s not the point. If you rip a dvd, you babe the movie, but you can’t sell DVDs with the movie, because it is copyrighted. After the “AI” has recreated it, the copyright is gone, so you can sell that version with impunity.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      It will go to a judge and the judge will say that changing three pixels doesn’t make it derivative. Regardless of the method of transformation, the same fair use and parody laws apply.

      • Camelbeard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        If you read a book you can talk about it, quote it, draw characters from that book, write your own ending, etc.

        Isn’t that kind of the same? Let’s say some day we have an AI with near human intelligence, why can’t the AI be trained on copyright works, just like humans, all our school books are copyrighted works?

          • Camelbeard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            So if AI companies pay for a book or music (like a consumer) it’s no problem? Because I don’t think this is about paying for content, it’s that content holders refuse to work with AI companies.

            • Mustard@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Unironically yes, if AI companies paid for training data everyone would be much happier.

              I sincerely doubt that NOBODY is willing to sell data to them. It’s far more likely that they have not offered anyone a fair price yet, which makes sense because that would set a precedent.

              Even then, if people don’t want to sell them their copyrighted work then tough. You can’t compel people to take customers they don’t want.

              • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                So if I go on a free website that hosts art (ArtStation, DeviantArt, etc.) and get training data that I could have legally accessed for free…

                • Mustard@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  They’ve all already done that haha. You could argue that a human has only one life in which to remix that art but an AI is theoretically immortal, so it’s a different category of customer.

                  At any rate, it’s clear that AI should not have free access to copyrighted works, like news articles, academic papers, stock images, and various kinds of non deviantart art.

        • Euphoma@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I’m pretty sure its technically copyright infringement to draw the characters (if they have a design in the book in images) or write fanfic, but no one cares. The only fan stuff that actually get taken down is nintendo fan games and in the past, videos on nintendo games without permission.

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        You can. Distributing copies is illegal, not downloading them. That’s why torrents are bad and streaming sites are fine. (Some exceptions might apply depending on your country).