Not when you give it to me. "Hey, can I see your pamphlet? Sure, here's a copy."
> an implicit license to consume this content
No, copyright prevents copying, not use. There's no implicit license needed to use a work so there's no place to attach those usage restrictions. If you want me to agree to a license you need to not give me the work until I do.
You could have a ToS click-through agreement ("no training an AI on this!"), and then only serve content to logged-in users who have agreed to your conditions.
> but not to reproduce it.
I agree - those "pamphlets" were given to me and I can't copy them for someone else. They'd have to view my collection.
> The exact legal status of AI models trained on other people's unlicensed works and their output is still largely unknown.
Sure, predicting all courts in the world is a futile exercise. Surely someone will try to over reach from copyright to preventing what they feel is a bad use but it's unlikely to become law because there are already analogous uses, scanning someone's text and pulling data from it - data like which words follow which other words.
> I do have a problem with these multi billion dollar companies scouring the internet for their money maker, giving nothing in return.
Well, FB released Llama... It's not a closed technology, it's being led by for-profit businesses but the community (which consists of many of the corporate engineers as well) is trying to keep up.
Even if you can and do attach usage regulations to your site I feel it'll hurt the little guy more than the corporations. There are probably not any unique linguistic constructions on your site that will render a corporate AI less valuable, but for hackers and tinkerers and eventual historians, who knows what it'll interfere with.
>Not when you give it to me. "Hey, can I see your pamphlet? Sure, here's a copy."
>> an implicit license to consume this content
>No, copyright prevents copying, not use. There's no implicit license needed to use a work so there's no place to attach those usage restrictions. If you want me to agree to a license you need to not give me the work until I do.
>You could have a ToS click-through agreement ("no training an AI on this!"), and then only serve content to logged-in users who have agreed to your conditions.
Fair enough, I worded that wrong.
>Sure, predicting all courts in the world is a futile exercise. Surely someone will try to over reach from copyright to preventing what they feel is a bad use but it's unlikely to become law because there are already analogous uses, scanning someone's text and pulling data from it - data like which words follow which other words.
Kazaa was banned despite being very popular for a few years. The DMCA was signed into law years after the first copyright trouble started. Just because the government is slow doesn't mean they won't write new law.
> Well, FB released Llama... It's not a closed technology, it's being led by for-profit businesses but the community (which consists of many of the corporate engineers as well) is trying to keep up.
FB's model leaked, it was subject to a strict whitelist originally. They didn't mean for it to get out there, but they wisely chose not to cause the Streisand effect to hurt them even more. And OpenAI (nice name) stopped releasing their model after it became good enough.
> Even if you can and do attach usage regulations to your site I feel it'll hurt the little guy more than the corporations. There are probably not any unique linguistic constructions on your site that will render a corporate AI less valuable, but for hackers and tinkerers and eventual historians, who knows what it'll interfere with.
I don't want to hurt anyone. I wish AI companies would do the right thing and simply ask for permission before taking someone's work and training on it. I'd probably agree if they did so a few years back!
I know my contribution to the larger model is extremely insignificant. However, my incentive to help others is greatly diminished when my wishes and ethical concerns are ignored so blatantly. I also don't think I'm alone in this. The amount of digital art I'm seeing in my timelines has greatly decreased, for example; more and more is being locked away behind paywalls because sharing your work freely only helps megacorporations replace you.