Post #2853046

2026-02-16 08:03 UTC

@rpbook@gts.phillipsuk.org @sjn@chaos.social Clearly, a lot of training has been conducted in violation of third-party rights. But note that the violation, in most cases, has been recognized not for the digitalization — processing—destroying part, but for the use of a clearly pirated repository of digital content (see the Anthropic case). Like it or not, the training part is not, if not explicitly introduced as an exclusion in the license, a violation. The same for FOSS code.

Replies (3)

@gisgeek@floss.social 2026-02-16 08:06

@rpbook@gts.phillipsuk.org @sjn@chaos.social Also, for the GPL use, note that 'derivation' cannot be confused with a set of billions of weights. The key point is the possible use of non-FOSS code in training again. But all that needs to be demonstrated. Of course, IANAL, but I see very little possibility of seeing such points in a judgment.

Open ##2853047
@gisgeek@floss.social 2026-02-16 08:23

@rpbook@gts.phillipsuk.org @sjn@chaos.social This is, unfortunately, also the main reason the so-called ripping off of artists' creations is pointless. If you buy a book with pictures of original creations, one can use them for training, exactly as a reader can study such portraits for their own goals, make hand copies for their own use, and so on. Like it or not, licenses and copyrights are something more specific than what it seems the idea of many people.

Open ##2853048
@rpbook@gts.phillipsuk.org 2026-02-16 09:19

@gisgeek@floss.social @sjn@chaos.social I'm very aware of the Anthropic case, I'm a part of it. Part of their defence has been that if they have to pay damages for everything they pirated, they'd go out of business. And now governments are talking about adding AI exceptions to copyright laws. Telling people to not share things so they don't get stolen is not a solution. It's simple victim blaming.

Open ##2853051