361

Japan determines copyright doesn't apply to LLM/ML training data (infosec.town)

submitted 10 months ago by ericjmorey@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] camelbeard@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months 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?

[-] Geobloke@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Because you paid for that book?

[-] camelbeard@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months 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 6 points 10 months 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 1 points 10 months 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 -1 points 10 months 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 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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.

this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024

361 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59094 readers

3701 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS