| ▲ | DrammBA 4 hours ago |
| I like the idea of AI-generated ~code~ anything being public domain. Public data in, public domain out. |
|
| ▲ | lejalv 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This could be read as a reformulation of the old adage - "what's mine is mine, and what is yours, is mine too". So, you can pilfer the commons ("public") but not stuff unavailable in source form. If we expand your thought experiment to other forms of expression, say videos on YT or Netflix, then yes. |
|
| ▲ | kshri24 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't think you can classify "public data in" as public domain. Public data could also include commercial licenses which forbid using it in any way other than what the license states. Just because the source is open for viewing does not necessarily mean it is OSL. That's the core issue here. All models are trained on ALL source code that is publicly available irrespective of how it was licensed. It is illegal but every company training LLMs is doing it anyways. |
| |
| ▲ | thedevilslawyer 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Copyright is not a blacklist but an allowlist of things kept aside for the holder. Everything else is free game. LLM ingestion comes under fair use so no worries. If someone can get their hand on it, nothing in law stops it from training ingestion. We can debate if this law is moral. Like the GP I took agree public data in -> public domain out is what's right for society. Copyright as an artificial concept has gone on for long enough. | | |
| ▲ | kshri24 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > LLM ingestion comes under fair use I don't think so. It is no where "limited use". Entirety of the source code is ingested for training the model. In other words, it meets the bar of "heart of the work" being used for training. There are other factors as well, such as not harming owner's ability to profit from original work. | | |
| ▲ | thedevilslawyer 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/07/fair-u... Both Meta and Anthropic were vindicated for their use. Only for Anthropic was their fine for not buying upfront. | | |
| ▲ | shakna 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Alsup absolutely did not vindicate Anthropic as "fair use". > Instead, it was a fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies. [0] It was only fair use, where they already had a license to the information at hand. [0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43... | |
| ▲ | kshri24 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This hasn't gone to Supreme Court yet. And this is just USA. Courts in rest of the World will also have to take a call. It is not as simple as you make it out to be. Developers are spread across the World with majority living outside USA. Jurisdiction matters in these things. | | |
| ▲ | thedevilslawyer 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Copyright's ambit has been pretty much defined and run by US for over a century. You're holding out for some grace on this from the wrong venue. The right avenue would be lobbying for new laws to regulate and use LLMs, not try to find shelter in an archaic and increasingly irrelevant bit of legalese. | | |
| ▲ | kshri24 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't disagree. However, just because your assertion of copyright being initially defined by US (which is not the fact. It was England that came up with it and was adopted by the Commonwealth which US was also a part of until its independence) does not mean jurisdiction is US. Even if US Supreme Court rules one way or the other, it doesn't matter as the rest of the World have its own definitions and legalese that need to be scrutinized and modernized. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | gf000 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are hardly any rulings/laws about the topic, and it quite obviously changes the picture of licenses. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | benob 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What about doing that with movies and music? |
| |
| ▲ | zodmaner 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The results would be the same: AI generated music and movies will be public domain. | | |
| ▲ | nkmnz 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | So you’d lose all rights on pictures of yourselves if they were generated by AI? Would this be true even for nudes? |
|
|
