No.
An LLM, being a large database derived mechanically from its training data, seems to meet the definition of “derived work” as exists in most copyright legislation.
The output from an LLM, through the inference process, is also mechanically derived from that training data.
Lawmakers might try writing exceptions to please a stock market eagerly baying for hyperscaler growth. Despite that, it seems entirely viable that the copyright, held by humans on the training data fed to the LLM, continue to hold in the output derived from that input.
People saying it’s “obvious the output has no copyright”, or people who act as though it’s all free from any claim by the humans who wrote the works used as training data, are just showing their ignorance, it seems to me.
If so, the copyright of the slop would be by the company running the LLM.
What creative transformation has that company done? It seems to me rather that the LLM is an entirely mechanical process with no creativity.
No more creative than what my ISP does when it conveys data from one machine to another.
We don’t allow the ISP to claim copyright in the data that it mechanically transforms. I don’t see why the company running an LLM would have any stronger claim of copyright in the output.
So self hosted inference means you own it then?
No, i don’t think so, i said “if so”. A piece of code can’t own something, unlike a person. Would be a different matter, if the piece of code was a person, but alas.
Uhm you sent the french variant
Ethics aside yes… Right up until an llm directly quotes something from its training set. Then all hell breaks loose. Good luck figuring out when that happens.
The rest of the time, I suspect most models act like “distinct from copyrighted material generation engines” and might even enjoy parody rights. That said, I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
please check the definition of derived work.
