[ezoe]

Exactly, this is just a 面子(face) problem.

Also, his demanding of not using his work for AI training is nonsense. Because entire articles, this one included is published under a Creative Commons license.

Didn't he agree on that?

Mozilla must reject his further contribution because he stated he don't understand the term of Creative Commons license. His wish granted I guess.

[wartywhoa23]

Creative Commons License was created without any AI in mind.

And

> Licensees may copy, distribute, display, perform and make derivative works and remixes based on it only if they GIVE THE AUTHOR or licensor THE CREDITS

[ezoe]

Is an ML model binary file created by using copyrighted work as its learning data, a derivative work of the copyrighted work? I don't think so.

[umanwizard]

This is the most fundamentally important question of AI-related law, and nobody knows the answer as it hasn't been tested by any court AFAIK (at least not in the US).

[ghssds]

We already know the tribunal will take AI's side, not because of any justice or ethical reason but because of capitalism. They will interpret the law as saying whatever they want the law to say.

[wartywhoa23]

If one takes another's work, cuts it up and makes collages out of it, however multidimensional, what is the piece size threshold that makes the collage non-derivative?

[kuschku]

Is the AI published under the same CC license, with attribution?

[ezoe]

CC only works on things that are copyright protected works. Is ML model binary file a derivative works of the learning source? I don't think so.

[AlexandrB]

Why not?

[ezoe]

Because it doesn't.

The Japanese copyright law clearly stated decades ago and recent US court favors Anthropic on this regard.

Copyright isn't granted on mere information or thought.

If you take somebody's copyrighted writing, analyze it and publish information such as how many words or sentence in it or other information about that copyrighted work, that's not a derivative works of original copyrighted work.