7 ms·

Licensing. You can't use Gemini Nano weights directly (at least commercial ly) and must interact with them through Android MLKit or similar Google approved runt

by tyushk 1y ago

Licensing. You can't use Gemini Nano weights directly (at least commercial ly) and must interact with them through Android MLKit or similar Google approved runtimes. You can use Gemma commercially using whatever runtime or framework you can get to run it.

littlestymaar 1y ago
It's not even clear you can license language model weight though. I'm not a lawyer but the analysis I've read had a pretty strong argument that there's no human creativity involved in the training, which is an entirely automatic process, and as such it cannot be copyrighted in any way (the same way you cannot put a license on a software artifact just because you compiled it yourself, you must have copyright ownership on the source code you're compiling).
- skissane 1y ago
  IANAL either but the answer likely depends on the jurisdiction US standards for copyrightability require human creativity and model weights likely don’t have the right kind of human creativity in them to be copyrightable in the US. No court to my knowledge has ruled on the question as yet, but that’s the US Copyright Office’s official stance. By contrast, standards for copyrightability in the UK are a lot weaker than-and so no court has ruled on the issue in the UK yet either, it seems likely a UK court would hold model weights to be copyrightable So from Google/Meta/etc’s viewpoint, asserting copyright makes sense, since even if the assertion isn’t legally valid in the US, it likely is in the UK - and not just the UK, many other major economies too. Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand tend to follow UK courts on copyright law not US courts. And many EU countries are closer to the UK than the US on this as well, not necessarily because they follow the UK, often because they’ve reached a similar position based on their own legal traditions Finally: don’t be surprised if Congress steps in and tries to legislate model weights as copyrightable in the US too, or grants them some sui generis form of legal protection which is legally distinct from copyright but similar to it-I can already hear the lobbyist argument, “US AI industry risks falling behind Europe because copyrightability of AI models in the US is legally uncertain and that legal uncertainty is discouraging investment”-I’m sceptical that is actually true, but something doesn’t have to be true for lobbyists to convince Congress that it is
  - simonw 1y ago
    > US standards for copyrightability require human creativity and model weights likely don’t have the right kind of human creativity in them to be copyrightable in the US. No court to my knowledge has ruled on the question as yet, but that’s the US Copyright Office’s official stance. Has the US copyright office said that about model weights? I've only heard them saying that about images produced entirely from a prompt to a model.
    - skissane 1y ago
      I thought I read something by them explicitly addressing the question but I can’t find it now. However, read page 22 of https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-... - it is their settled position that the output of a mechanical process cannot be copyrightable unless there was substantial human creative input into it - and it is pretty clear that AI training doesn’t involve human creative input in the relevant sense. Now, no doubt there is lots of human skill and art in picking the best hyperparameters, etc - but that’s not input of the right kind. An analogy - a photocopier does not create a new copyright in the copy, even though there is skill and art in picking the right settings on the machine to produce the most faithful copy. The human creativity in choosing hyperparameters isn’t relevant to copyrightability because it isn’t directly reflected in the creative elements of the model itself A model with RLHF fine-tuning could be a different story - e.g. Anthropic went to a lot of effort to make Claude speak with a distinctive “voice”, and some of that involved carefully crafting data to use for fine-tuning, and the model may contain some of the copyright of that training data. But, even if that argument also applies to Gemma or Llama - if someone intentionally further fine-tunes the model in order to remove that distinctive “voice”, then you’ve removed the copyrightable element from the model and what is left isn’t copyrightable. Because the really expensive part of building a model is building the foundation model, and that’s the part least likely to be copyrightable; whereas, fine-tuning to speak with a distinctive voice is more likely to be copyrightable, but that’s the easy part, and easy to rip out (and people have motivation to do so because a lot of people desire a model which speaks with a different voice instead)
- AlanYx 1y ago
  That's one of the reasons why they gate Gemini Nano with the "Gemini Nano Program Additional Terms of Service". Even if copyright doesn't subsist in the weights or if using them would be fair use, they still have recourse in breach of contract.
  - skissane 1y ago
    The problem is that contracts don’t bind subsequent recipients, copyright does Google gives the model to X who gives it to Y who gives it to Z. X has a contract with Google, so Google can sue X for breach of contract if they violate its terms. But do Y and Z have such a contract? Probably not. Of course, Google can put language in their contract with X to try to make it bind Y and Z too, but is that language going to be legally effective? More often than not, no. The language may enable Google to successfully sue X over Y and Z’s behaviour, but not successfully sue Y and Z directly. Whereas, with copyright, Y and Z are directly liable for violations just as X is
    - jinlisp 1y ago
      Thank you, this is a nice point to consider. Don't know if using the weights could be considered equivalent or implying accepting the terms of services from weights creators.
      - skissane 1y ago
        Contracts require agreement (a “meeting of the minds”)… if X makes a contract with Google, that contract between Google and X can’t create a contract between Google and Y without Y’s agreement. Of course, Google’s lawyers will do all they can possibly can to make the contract “transitive”, but the problem is contracts fundamentally don’t have the property of transitivity. Now, if you are aware of a contract between two parties, and you actively and knowingly cooperate with one of them in violating it, you may have some legal liability for that contractual violation even though you weren’t formally party to the contract, but there are limits - if I know you have signed an NDA, and I personally encourage you to send me documents covered by the NDA in violation of it, I may indeed be exposed to legal liability for your NDA violation. But, if we are complete strangers, and you upload NDA-protected documents to a file sharing website, where I stumble upon them and download them - then the legal liability for the NDA violation is all on you, none on me. The owner of the information could still sue me for downloading it under copyright law, but they have no legal recourse against me under contract law (the NDA), because I never had anything to do with the contract, neither directly nor indirectly If you download a model from the vendor’s website, they can argue you agreed to the contract as a condition of being allowed to make the download. But if you download it from elsewhere, what is the consideration (the thing they are giving you) necessary to make a binding contract? If the content of the download is copyrighted, they can argue the consideration is giving you permission to use their copyrighted work; but if it is an AI model and models are uncopyrightable, they have nothing to give when you download it from somewhere else and hence no basis to claim a contractual relationship What they’ll sometimes do, is put words in the contract saying that you have to impose the contract on anyone else you redistribute the covered work to. And if you redistribute it in full compliance with those terms, your recipients may find themselves bound by the contract just as you are. But if you fail to impose the contract when redistributing, the recipients escape being bound for it, and the legal liability for that failure is all yours, not theirs
- km3r 1y ago
  Why not? Training isn't just "data in/data out". The process for training is continuously tweaked and adjusted. With many of those adjustments being specific to the type of model you are trying to output.
  - skissane 1y ago
    The US copyright office’s position is basically this-under US law, copyrightability requires direct human creativity, an automated training process involves no direct human creativity so cannot produce copyright. Now, we all know there is a lot of creative human effort in selecting what data to use as input, tinkering with hyperparameters, etc - but the copyright office’s position is that doesn’t legally count - creative human effort in overseeing an automated process doesn’t change the fact that the automated process itself doesn’t directly involve any human creativity. So the human creativity in model training fails to make the model copyrightable because it is too indirect By contrast, UK copyright law accepts the “mere sweat of the brow” doctrine, the mere fact you spent money on training is likely sufficient to make its output copyrightable, UK law doesn’t impose the same requirements for a direct human creative contribution
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  Doesn't that imply just the training process isn't copyrightable? But weights aren't just training, they're also your source data. And if the training set shows originality in selection, coordination, or arrangement, isn't that copyrightable? So why wouldn't the weights also be copyrightable?
  - rvnx 1y ago
    The weights are mathematical facts. As raw numbers, they are not copyrightable.
    - IncreasePosts 1y ago
      `en_windows_xp_professional_with_service_pack_3_x86_cd_vl_x14-73974.iso` is also just raw numbers, but I believe Windows XP was copyrightable
      - vntok 1y ago
        Interesting. From what I understand, copyright only applies to the original source code, GUI and bundled icon/sound/image files. Functionality etc. would fall under patent law. So the compiled code on your .ISO for example would not only be "just raw numbers" but uncopyrightable raw numbers.
        lolc 1y ago
        Of course copyright applies to binaries too. It's long been established that compiled code is a derived work of its source.
    - victorbjorklund 1y ago
      A computer program is just 0s and 1s. Harry Potter books are just raw letters or raw numbers if an ebook. (The combination is what makes it copyrightable).
      - littlestymaar 1y ago
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > It's not even clear you can license language model weight though. It is clear you can license (give people permissions to) model weights, it is less clear that there is any law protecting them such that they need a license, but since there is always a risk of suit and subsequent loss in the absence of clarity, licenses are at least beneficial in reducing that risk.

by tyushk 1y ago

littlestymaar 1y ago

It's not even clear you can license language model weight though. I'm not a lawyer but the analysis I've read had a pretty strong argument that there's no human creativity involved in the training, which is an entirely automatic process, and as such it cannot be copyrighted in any way (the same way you cannot put a license on a software artifact just because you compiled it yourself, you must have copyright ownership on the source code you're compiling).

skissane 1y ago
IANAL either but the answer likely depends on the jurisdiction US standards for copyrightability require human creativity and model weights likely don’t have the right kind of human creativity in them to be copyrightable in the US. No court to my knowledge has ruled on the question as yet, but that’s the US Copyright Office’s official stance. By contrast, standards for copyrightability in the UK are a lot weaker than-and so no court has ruled on the issue in the UK yet either, it seems likely a UK court would hold model weights to be copyrightable So from Google/Meta/etc’s viewpoint, asserting copyright makes sense, since even if the assertion isn’t legally valid in the US, it likely is in the UK - and not just the UK, many other major economies too. Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand tend to follow UK courts on copyright law not US courts. And many EU countries are closer to the UK than the US on this as well, not necessarily because they follow the UK, often because they’ve reached a similar position based on their own legal traditions Finally: don’t be surprised if Congress steps in and tries to legislate model weights as copyrightable in the US too, or grants them some sui generis form of legal protection which is legally distinct from copyright but similar to it-I can already hear the lobbyist argument, “US AI industry risks falling behind Europe because copyrightability of AI models in the US is legally uncertain and that legal uncertainty is discouraging investment”-I’m sceptical that is actually true, but something doesn’t have to be true for lobbyists to convince Congress that it is
- simonw 1y ago
  > US standards for copyrightability require human creativity and model weights likely don’t have the right kind of human creativity in them to be copyrightable in the US. No court to my knowledge has ruled on the question as yet, but that’s the US Copyright Office’s official stance. Has the US copyright office said that about model weights? I've only heard them saying that about images produced entirely from a prompt to a model.
  - skissane 1y ago
    I thought I read something by them explicitly addressing the question but I can’t find it now. However, read page 22 of https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-... - it is their settled position that the output of a mechanical process cannot be copyrightable unless there was substantial human creative input into it - and it is pretty clear that AI training doesn’t involve human creative input in the relevant sense. Now, no doubt there is lots of human skill and art in picking the best hyperparameters, etc - but that’s not input of the right kind. An analogy - a photocopier does not create a new copyright in the copy, even though there is skill and art in picking the right settings on the machine to produce the most faithful copy. The human creativity in choosing hyperparameters isn’t relevant to copyrightability because it isn’t directly reflected in the creative elements of the model itself A model with RLHF fine-tuning could be a different story - e.g. Anthropic went to a lot of effort to make Claude speak with a distinctive “voice”, and some of that involved carefully crafting data to use for fine-tuning, and the model may contain some of the copyright of that training data. But, even if that argument also applies to Gemma or Llama - if someone intentionally further fine-tunes the model in order to remove that distinctive “voice”, then you’ve removed the copyrightable element from the model and what is left isn’t copyrightable. Because the really expensive part of building a model is building the foundation model, and that’s the part least likely to be copyrightable; whereas, fine-tuning to speak with a distinctive voice is more likely to be copyrightable, but that’s the easy part, and easy to rip out (and people have motivation to do so because a lot of people desire a model which speaks with a different voice instead)
AlanYx 1y ago
That's one of the reasons why they gate Gemini Nano with the "Gemini Nano Program Additional Terms of Service". Even if copyright doesn't subsist in the weights or if using them would be fair use, they still have recourse in breach of contract.
- skissane 1y ago
  The problem is that contracts don’t bind subsequent recipients, copyright does Google gives the model to X who gives it to Y who gives it to Z. X has a contract with Google, so Google can sue X for breach of contract if they violate its terms. But do Y and Z have such a contract? Probably not. Of course, Google can put language in their contract with X to try to make it bind Y and Z too, but is that language going to be legally effective? More often than not, no. The language may enable Google to successfully sue X over Y and Z’s behaviour, but not successfully sue Y and Z directly. Whereas, with copyright, Y and Z are directly liable for violations just as X is
  - jinlisp 1y ago
    Thank you, this is a nice point to consider. Don't know if using the weights could be considered equivalent or implying accepting the terms of services from weights creators.
    - skissane 1y ago
      Contracts require agreement (a “meeting of the minds”)… if X makes a contract with Google, that contract between Google and X can’t create a contract between Google and Y without Y’s agreement. Of course, Google’s lawyers will do all they can possibly can to make the contract “transitive”, but the problem is contracts fundamentally don’t have the property of transitivity. Now, if you are aware of a contract between two parties, and you actively and knowingly cooperate with one of them in violating it, you may have some legal liability for that contractual violation even though you weren’t formally party to the contract, but there are limits - if I know you have signed an NDA, and I personally encourage you to send me documents covered by the NDA in violation of it, I may indeed be exposed to legal liability for your NDA violation. But, if we are complete strangers, and you upload NDA-protected documents to a file sharing website, where I stumble upon them and download them - then the legal liability for the NDA violation is all on you, none on me. The owner of the information could still sue me for downloading it under copyright law, but they have no legal recourse against me under contract law (the NDA), because I never had anything to do with the contract, neither directly nor indirectly If you download a model from the vendor’s website, they can argue you agreed to the contract as a condition of being allowed to make the download. But if you download it from elsewhere, what is the consideration (the thing they are giving you) necessary to make a binding contract? If the content of the download is copyrighted, they can argue the consideration is giving you permission to use their copyrighted work; but if it is an AI model and models are uncopyrightable, they have nothing to give when you download it from somewhere else and hence no basis to claim a contractual relationship What they’ll sometimes do, is put words in the contract saying that you have to impose the contract on anyone else you redistribute the covered work to. And if you redistribute it in full compliance with those terms, your recipients may find themselves bound by the contract just as you are. But if you fail to impose the contract when redistributing, the recipients escape being bound for it, and the legal liability for that failure is all yours, not theirs
km3r 1y ago
Why not? Training isn't just "data in/data out". The process for training is continuously tweaked and adjusted. With many of those adjustments being specific to the type of model you are trying to output.
- skissane 1y ago
  The US copyright office’s position is basically this-under US law, copyrightability requires direct human creativity, an automated training process involves no direct human creativity so cannot produce copyright. Now, we all know there is a lot of creative human effort in selecting what data to use as input, tinkering with hyperparameters, etc - but the copyright office’s position is that doesn’t legally count - creative human effort in overseeing an automated process doesn’t change the fact that the automated process itself doesn’t directly involve any human creativity. So the human creativity in model training fails to make the model copyrightable because it is too indirect By contrast, UK copyright law accepts the “mere sweat of the brow” doctrine, the mere fact you spent money on training is likely sufficient to make its output copyrightable, UK law doesn’t impose the same requirements for a direct human creative contribution
IncreasePosts 1y ago
Doesn't that imply just the training process isn't copyrightable? But weights aren't just training, they're also your source data. And if the training set shows originality in selection, coordination, or arrangement, isn't that copyrightable? So why wouldn't the weights also be copyrightable?
- rvnx 1y ago
  The weights are mathematical facts. As raw numbers, they are not copyrightable.
  - IncreasePosts 1y ago
    `en_windows_xp_professional_with_service_pack_3_x86_cd_vl_x14-73974.iso` is also just raw numbers, but I believe Windows XP was copyrightable
    - vntok 1y ago
      Interesting. From what I understand, copyright only applies to the original source code, GUI and bundled icon/sound/image files. Functionality etc. would fall under patent law. So the compiled code on your .ISO for example would not only be "just raw numbers" but uncopyrightable raw numbers.
      - lolc 1y ago
        Of course copyright applies to binaries too. It's long been established that compiled code is a derived work of its source.
  - victorbjorklund 1y ago
    A computer program is just 0s and 1s. Harry Potter books are just raw letters or raw numbers if an ebook. (The combination is what makes it copyrightable).
    - littlestymaar 1y ago
dragonwriter 1y ago
> It's not even clear you can license language model weight though. It is clear you can license (give people permissions to) model weights, it is less clear that there is any law protecting them such that they need a license, but since there is always a risk of suit and subsequent loss in the absence of clarity, licenses are at least beneficial in reducing that risk.