Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kerrick | Hacker News Reader

I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think that affects the copyright or license of works created with the broken-term software. For example, wouldn’t you still own the copyright to a brochure you made with pirated Photoshop, or a photo you took with a DJI drone while flying out of sight?

(All of which may be moot if models can’t be copyrighted because they’re machine-generated.)

View on HN

It's not an issue of copyright as terms of service. The images you create out of a pirate photoshop, you do own the copyright, but adobe can also go after you for the unrelated matter of illegally bypassing their DRM.

But then when it's distributed, are the people who receive it are in the clear, whilst the original author gets pursued?

For example, can anyone now use GPT4All and there be nothing that OpenAI could do about it?

If you can sue someone for using stuff you copyrighted to train a model, "Open"AI won't be a thing in the first place. Moreover, "Open"AI doesn't have copyright on the outputs, only the terms of services stops the receiver of the output from developing competing products. If you received the subsequent product, there is nothing OpenAI can do to you because you didn't enter into an agreement with them in the first place. None of this involves any copyright.

I’d argue it’s different.

It’s not about using software but for example creating brochure using embedded asset library provided with software (which is often the case but not sure if that’s in Photoshop).

In imaginary scenario - Meta could have obtained rights to train model on FB data through EULA and could (potentially) extend those rights to “legitimate” users but me using same data to create derivatives could be a problem (and might lead to financial losses).

Something similar to “Blurred Lines” case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com