this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
1714 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59295 readers
5011 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So does that mean anyone is allowed to use said content for whatever purposes they'd like? That'd include AI stuff too I think? Interesting twist there, hadn't thought about it like this yet. Essentially posters would be agreeing to share that data/info publically. No different than someone learning how to code from looking at examples made by their professors or someone else doing the teaching/talking I suppose. Hmm.

[–] repungnant_canary@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

CC (not sure about MIT) virtually always requires attribution, but as GitHub Copilot showed right now open-"media" authors have basically no way of enforcing their rights.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Probably cuz they gave them away when they open licensed....you know...how it's supposed to work

[–] repungnant_canary@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

In most jurisdictions you can't give away copyright - that's why CC0 exists. And again most open-source and CC licences require attribution, if you use those licences you have a right to be attributed

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago

For super permissible licenses like MIT then it's probably fine. Maybe folks would need to list the training data and all the licenses (since a common requirement of many of even the most permissible licenses is to include a copy of the license).

As far as I know, a court hasn't ruled on whether clauses like "share alike" or "copy left" (think CC BY-SA or GPL) would require anything special or not allow models. Anyone saying otherwise is just making a best guess. My best guess is (pessimistically) that it won't do any good because things produced by a machine cannot be copyrighted. But I haven't done much of a deep dive. I got really interested in the differences between many software licenses a few years back and did some reading but I'm far from an expert.