6 ms·
>Because they own the IP and they get to decide the terms of how it’s licensed. how'd that work out for the rest of IP owners that had their stuff used as trai
by serf 7d ago
>Because they own the IP and they get to decide the terms of how it’s licensed.
how'd that work out for the rest of IP owners that had their stuff used as training data for use in model creation?
was the material they trained on produced in-house?
- Aurornis 7d agoUse as training data has been tested in court multiple times and cleared. I know some people want it to be a legal violation, but it’s not. Also these are audio models, if you hadn’t noticed. The training sets for this type of work is very different than the corpus of scraped GitHub repos.
- Chris2048 7d agoPresumably it's fine to train a model on their model then?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 7d agoThis is not even remotely settled law yet, what an absolute falsehood! It will take years for the hundreds of jurisdictions in the world to write new laws and (in common law countries) establish new precedent.
- Dlemlo 7d agoWas the material, I was trained, produced in-house? Philosophical questions don't make sense if you use them to counter argue about something which is a legal issue.
- avazhi 7d ago> how'd that work out for the rest of IP owners that had their stuff used as training data for use in model creation? was the material they trained on produced in-house? Not only did you pull a whataboutism but the whataboutism isn't even relevant to the topic of conversation lol.