This case didn’t cover the copyright status of outputs. The ruling so far is just about the process of training itself.
IMHO the generative ML companies should be required to build a process tracking the influence of distinct samples on the outputs, and inform users of potential licensing status
Division of liability / licensing responsibility should depend on who contributes what to the prompt / generation. The less it takes for the user to trigger the model to generate an output clearly derived from a protected work, the more liability lies on the model operator. If the user couldn’t have known, they shouldn’t be liable. If the user deliberately used jailbreaks, etc, the user is clearly liable.
But you get a weird edge case when users unknowingly copy prompts containing jailbreaks, though
This case didn’t cover the copyright status of outputs. The ruling so far is just about the process of training itself.
IMHO the generative ML companies should be required to build a process tracking the influence of distinct samples on the outputs, and inform users of potential licensing status
Division of liability / licensing responsibility should depend on who contributes what to the prompt / generation. The less it takes for the user to trigger the model to generate an output clearly derived from a protected work, the more liability lies on the model operator. If the user couldn’t have known, they shouldn’t be liable. If the user deliberately used jailbreaks, etc, the user is clearly liable.
But you get a weird edge case when users unknowingly copy prompts containing jailbreaks, though
https://infosec.pub/comment/16682120