|
> But the crime in the human instance is the reproduction, not the storage. So the crime in the AI circumstance would not be in the training, but in prompting the output. I wouldn't be so sure, at least under US law. 17 USC 101 defines a "copy" as: [...] material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
If I memorize a work what ends up in my brain is not a copy according to that definition because with current technology there is no machine or device which can be used to perceive, reproduce, or otherwise communicate it. The work can only be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated by using my brain which is not a machine or device.No copy in my brain means that memorizing the work cannot infringe the copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies. An LLM, unlike my brain, is a machine or device which can be used to perceive, reproduce, or otherwise communicate the work and so the work stored in the LLM is a copy. Training an LLM then, unlike a brain memorizing a work, makes a copy and so would be covered by the copyright owner's exclusive right to make copies. That's going to need to be justified, probably by arguing fair use. |