[ANewFormation]

Now that you mention it, I'm quite surprised that none of the typical fanatical IP lawsuiters had sued arguing (reasonably I think) that the output of the LLMs is strongly suggestive that they have been trained on copyrighted materials. Get the lawsuit to discovery, and those data centers become fair game.

Perhaps 'strongly suggestive' isn't enough.

[Onawa]

Wasn't that the goal of both the New York Times lawsuit and other class action lawsuits from authors?

https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/04/nyt-v-openai-the-t...

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/p...

[dragonwriter]

> Now that you mention it, I'm quite surprised that none of the typical fanatical IP lawsuiters had sued arguing (reasonably I think) that the output of the LLMs is strongly suggestive that they have been trained on copyrighted materials. Get the lawsuit to discovery, and those data centers become fair game.

No, there have been lawsuits, and the data centers have not been fair game because whether or not the models were trained on copyright-protected works is not generally in dispute. Discovery only applies to evidence relevant to facts in dispute.

[cabalamat]

> strongly suggestive that they have been trained on copyrighted materials

Given that everything -- including this comment -- is copyrighted unless it is (1) old or (2) deliberately put into the public domain, this is almost certainly true.

[rusk]

Isn’t this comment in the public domain? I presume that’s what I’m doing when I’m posting on a forum. If somebody copied and pasted something I wrote on here could I in theory use copyright law to restrict distribution? I think the law would say I published it on a public forum and thus it is in the public domain.

[taormina]

Why would it be in the public domain? Anything you create, under US copyright law, is the opposite of being in the public domain, it's yours. According to the legalese of YC, you are granting YC and YC alone a license to use the UGC you submitted to their website, but if anything, the YC agreement DEMANDS that you own the copyright to the comment you are posting.

> User Content Transmitted Through the Site: With respect to the content or other materials you upload through the Site or share with other users or recipients (collectively, “User Content”), you represent and warrant that you own all right, title and interest in and to such User Content, including, without limitation, all copyrights and rights of publicity contained therein. By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed. However, please review the Privacy Policy located here for more information on how we treat information included in applications submitted to us.

> You acknowledge and agree that any questions, comments, suggestions, ideas, feedback or other information about the Site (“Submissions”) provided by you to Y Combinator are non-confidential and Y Combinator will be entitled to the unrestricted use and dissemination of these Submissions for any purpose, without acknowledgment or compensation to you.

[ANewFormation]

Another example of this is people putting code, intended to be shared, up on e.g. Github without a licence.

Many people seem to think that no licence = public domain, but it's still under strong copyright protection. This is the point of things like the Unlicense license.

[graemep]

> If somebody copied and pasted something I wrote on here could I in theory use copyright law to restrict distribution?

Yes you could, unless you agreed to forum terms that said otherwise, fair use aside. Its the same in most jurisdictions