• anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      LLMs themselves being products of copyright isnt the legal question at issue, it’s the downstream use of that product.

      If I use a copyright-infringing work as a part of a new creative work, does that new work infringe copyright by default? Or does the new work need to be judged itself as to the question of infringing a copyrighted work?

      And if it is judged as infringing, who is responsible for the damage done? Can I pass the damages back to the original infringing work? Or should I be held responsible for not performing due diligence?

      • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        If I use a copyright-infringing work as a part of a new creative work, does that new work infringe copyright by default?

        No, see reaction content, parody content, etc. They all undoubtedly use copyrighted work and they don’t automatically infringe on copyright by default.

        And if it is judged as infringing, who is responsible for the damage done? Can I pass the damages back to the original infringing work? Or should I be held responsible for not performing due diligence?

        The infringing party is the human that used the tool which generated the infringing work. Everything after that is exactly the same applicaton of copyright law just as if you were selling pictures of Mickey Mouse that you drew yourself. Disney can sue you, they can’t sue the pencil manufacturer.

        • anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Yup

          People want to pretend as if everything that flows downstream from the creation of LLMs is illegal, but that’s just not the reality.