I did a cursory search on this, and couldn’t find anything, however, is there or could there be an llm trained only on text or data which is in the public domain or is otherwise openly licensed?
I did a cursory search on this, and couldn’t find anything, however, is there or could there be an llm trained only on text or data which is in the public domain or is otherwise openly licensed?
oh you sweet summer child… (edit: sorry for my attempt at a lighthearted quip that people ended up hating 🫣)
https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2025/landmark-ruling-of-the-munich-regional-court-(gema-v-openai)-on-copyright-and-ai-training
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-approves-anthropics-15-billion-settlement-copyright-lawsuit-2026-07-20/
(I’m just linking random lawsuits. I’m not a lawyer, this isn’t legal advice.)
Also, there are a ton of licenses where reproducing them in full is probably using them as intended, think of the GPL for example. But that doesn’t say anything about plagiarizing excerpts without attribution or licensing info. So just putting them on hugging face is potentially not quite the same as basing an LLM on it, I think. Anyway, I’m not a legal person so don’t ask me for the details - but you’ll be able to find plenty of articles on this by people actually qualified to talk about it.
There is no need to call me a sweet summer child.
I’m not terribly swayed by a Munich regional case, especially as its still under appeal.
The anthropic settlement definitely is a bit more meaningful though, although it does contradict the Munich one:
The basically settled because they stole the copies of books they used to train on. If they had just paid for a copy of the books they possibly would have been fine.
My apologies, it was an attempt at humor which I can see backfired. 😬
Now as for the case selection, I personally find the regional case interesting because it appears to show the possibility of courts seeing this differently. There are more out there than the ones I quoted.
And I think there might be a possible misunderstanding, sorry about my lack of clarity: I wasn’t trying to prove that this is for sure a copyright infringement, since I’m not a lawyer anyway. But I think it’s pretty obvious NVidia doesn’t care if it turns out to be one - that’s at least my personal opinion.
The regional case isnt interesting because its regional. Regional courts get it wrong all the time, only for it to be overturned by higher courts. There is also the possibility that this court was known to be pro-authors or anti-big tech, and the case was brought there for that specific reason.
If it gets held up on appeal then that is much more interesting, but for now, its basically one judges opinion.
In my uninformed opinion, it casts quite some doubt on the narrative that it’s absurd that courts will somehow decide against AI, or that the use will “clearly” not ever turn out to be a fundamental problem later. And again, there are multiple cases where this happened, it’s not just one judge.
But I’m not a legal expert so keep that in mind and don’t trust me. (However, I’m making an educated guess that perhaps you aren’t one either. My apologies if that is incorrect.)
Oracle v Google went back and forth for the better part of a decade, with rulings on both sides. This is much the same, time will tell.
What an annoying and pointless thing to write several times in a row. One time was more than enough.
deleted by creator
Many of these comments are not even construable as legal advice but honestly even if they were that wouldn’t be on you if someone was dumb enough to follow it