Document Open Access Logo

Can Copyright Be Reduced to Privacy?

Authors Niva Elkin-Koren, Uri Hacohen, Roi Livni, Shay Moran

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.FORC.2024.3.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.76 MB
  • 18 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Niva Elkin-Koren
  • Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Uri Hacohen
  • Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Roi Livni
  • School of Electrical Engineering, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Shay Moran
  • Departments of Mathematics and Computer Science, Technion, Haifa, Israel

Funding

This research was funded in part by and ISF Grant (2188$$120), an ERC grant (FOG, 101116258) and ERC grant (GENERALIZATION, 10139692). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. In addition, the research leading to these results was supported by TILabs Tel-Aviv University Innovation Labs.

Acknowledgements

We thank Bruria Friedman for research assistance.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Niva Elkin-Koren, Uri Hacohen, Roi Livni, and Shay Moran. Can Copyright Be Reduced to Privacy?. In 5th Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing (FORC 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 295, pp. 3:1-3:18, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FORC.2024.3

Abstract

There is a growing concern that generative AI models will generate outputs closely resembling the copyrighted materials for which they are trained. This worry has intensified as the quality and complexity of generative models have immensely improved, and the availability of extensive datasets containing copyrighted material has expanded. Researchers are actively exploring strategies to mitigate the risk of generating infringing samples, with a recent line of work suggesting to employ techniques such as differential privacy and other forms of algorithmic stability to provide guarantees on the lack of infringing copying. In this work, we examine whether such algorithmic stability techniques are suitable to ensure the responsible use of generative models without inadvertently violating copyright laws. We argue that while these techniques aim to verify the presence of identifiable information in datasets, thus being privacy-oriented, copyright law aims to promote the use of original works for the benefit of society as a whole, provided that no unlicensed use of protected expression occurred. These fundamental differences between privacy and copyright must not be overlooked. In particular, we demonstrate that while algorithmic stability may be perceived as a practical tool to detect copying, such copying does not necessarily constitute copyright infringement. Therefore, if adopted as a standard for detecting an establishing copyright infringement, algorithmic stability may undermine the intended objectives of copyright law.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Social and professional topics → Copyrights
Keywords
  • Copyright
  • Privacy
  • Generative Learning

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Related Versions

References

  1. Omer Angel and Yinon Spinka. Pairwise optimal coupling of multiple random variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00632, 2019. Google Scholar
  2. Clark D Asay. Independent creation in a world of ai. FIU L. Rev., 14:201, 2020. Google Scholar
  3. AVs.S. Andersen et al v. Stability AI Ltd. et al, Docket No. 3:23-cv-00201 (N.D. Cal. Jan 13, 2023), 2023. Google Scholar
  4. Yochai Benkler. Free as the air to common use: First amendment constraints on enclosure of the public domain. NyuL Rev., 74:354, 1999. Google Scholar
  5. Olivier Bousquet, Roi Livni, and Shay Moran. Synthetic data generators-sequential and private. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:7114-7124, 2020. Google Scholar
  6. Mark Bun, Kobbi Nissim, and Uri Stemmer. Simultaneous private learning of multiple concepts. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, pages 369-380, 2016. Google Scholar
  7. Bvs.S. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S 99, 1879. Google Scholar
  8. Bvs.S. Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1472 (9th Cir. 1992)), 1992. Google Scholar
  9. Nicholas Carlini, Jamie Hayes, Milad Nasr, Matthew Jagielski, Vikash Sehwag, Florian Tramer, Borja Balle, Daphne Ippolito, and Eric Wallace. Extracting training data from diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13188, 2023. Google Scholar
  10. Julie E Cohen. Configuring the networked self: Law, code, and the play of everyday practice. Yale University Press, 2012. Google Scholar
  11. U.S CONST. U.S CONST. art. I, 8, cl. 8, (). Google Scholar
  12. Cvs.A. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S 569, 578, 1994. Google Scholar
  13. Dvs.G. DOE 1 et al v. GitHub, Inc. et al class action, 2022. Google Scholar
  14. Cynthia Dwork and Vitaly Feldman. Privacy-preserving prediction. In Conference On Learning Theory, pages 1693-1702. PMLR, 2018. Google Scholar
  15. Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference, pages 214-226, 2012. Google Scholar
  16. Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In Theory of Cryptography: Third Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2006, New York, NY, USA, March 4-7, 2006. Proceedings 3, pages 265-284. Springer, 2006. Google Scholar
  17. Niva Elkin-Koren. Cyberlaw and social change: A democratic approach to copyright law in cyberspace. Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ, 14:215, 1996. Google Scholar
  18. Niva Elkin-Koren. Copyright in a digital ecosystem: a user-rights approach. Forthcoming in RUTH OKEDIJI, COPYRIGHT IN AN AGE OF LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS (2015), 2015. Google Scholar
  19. Giorgio Franceschelli and Mirco Musolesi. Deepcreativity: measuring creativity with deep learning techniques. Intelligenza Artificiale, 16(2):151-163, 2022. Google Scholar
  20. Fvs.R. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 US 340, 345, 1991. Google Scholar
  21. James Gibson. Risk aversion and rights accretion in intellectual property law. Yale LJ, 116:882, 2006. Google Scholar
  22. Avs. Google. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 207–08, 225 (2d Cir. 2015)), 2015. Google Scholar
  23. James Grimmelmann. Copyright for literate robots. Iowa L. Rev., 101:657, 2015. Google Scholar
  24. Uri Y Hacohen and Niva Elkin-Koren. Copyright regenerated: Harnessing genai to measure originality and copyright scope. Hardvard Journal of Law & Technology, 2024. Google Scholar
  25. Niv Haim, Gal Vardi, Gilad Yehudai, Ohad Shamir, and Michal Irani. Reconstructing training data from trained neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07758, 2022. Google Scholar
  26. Valentin Hartmann, Anshuman Suri, Vincent Bindschaedler, David Evans, Shruti Tople, and Robert West. Sok: Memorization in general-purpose large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18362, 2023. Google Scholar
  27. Peter Henderson, Xuechen Li, Dan Jurafsky, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Mark A Lemley, and Percy Liang. Foundation models and fair use. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15715, 2023. Google Scholar
  28. Hvs.R. Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S 539, 1985. Google Scholar
  29. Richard H Jones. The myth of the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law. Pace L. Rev., 10:551, 1990. Google Scholar
  30. Peter Kairouz, H Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aurélien Bellet, Mehdi Bennis, Arjun Nitin Bhagoji, Kallista Bonawitz, Zachary Charles, Graham Cormode, Rachel Cummings, et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and Trendsregistered in Machine Learning, 14(1-2):1-210, 2021. Google Scholar
  31. Louis Kaplow. Rules versus standards: An economic analysis. Duke Law Journal, 42(3):557-629, 1992. Google Scholar
  32. Aleksandra Korolova, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Nina Mishra, and Alexandros Ntoulas. Releasing search queries and clicks privately. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web, pages 171-180, 2009. Google Scholar
  33. Katherine Lee, A Feder Cooper, and James Grimmelmann. Talkin"bout ai generation: Copyright and the generative-ai supply chain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08133, 2023. Google Scholar
  34. Legislation and Legal Counsel (Civil Law). OPINION: USES OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS FOR MACHINE LEARNING. State of Israel Ministry of Justice, 2022. Google Scholar
  35. Mark A Lemley. Our bizarre system for proving copyright infringement. J. Copyright Soc'y USA, 57:719, 2009. Google Scholar
  36. Mark A Lemley and Bryan Casey. Fair learning. Tex. L. Rev., 99:743, 2020. Google Scholar
  37. Jessica Litman. The public domain. Emory Lj, 39:965, 1990. Google Scholar
  38. Jessica Litman. Billowing white goo. Colum. JL & Arts, 31:587, 2007. Google Scholar
  39. L.vs.B. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995); Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 516 U.S 233 (1996) , 1996. Google Scholar
  40. Peter S Menell and Michael J Meurer. Notice failure and notice externalities. Journal of Legal Analysis, 5(1):1-59, 2013. Google Scholar
  41. Mvs.S. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S 201, 219] , 1954. Google Scholar
  42. Neil Weinstock Netanel. Copyright’s paradox. Oxford University Press, 2008. Google Scholar
  43. Neil Weinstock Netanel. Making sense of fair use. Lewis & Clark L. Rev., 15:715, 2011. Google Scholar
  44. N.vs.C. Nash v. CBS, Inc., 899 F.2d 1537 (7th, cir., 1990), 1990. Google Scholar
  45. U.S Copyright Office. Works Not Protected by Copyright, 2021. Google Scholar
  46. Gideon Parchomovsky and Alex Stein. Originality. Va. L. Rev., 95:1505, 2009. Google Scholar
  47. Matthew Sag. The new legal landscape for text mining and machine learning. J. Copyright Soc'y USA, 66:291, 2018. Google Scholar
  48. Pamela Samuelson. The copyright grab. Wired Magazine, 4, 1996. Google Scholar
  49. Pamela Samuelson. Reconceptualizing copyright’s merger doctrine. J. Copyright Soc'y USA, 63:417, 2016. Google Scholar
  50. Pamela Samuelson. Generative ai meets copyright. Science, 381(6654):158-161, 2023. Google Scholar
  51. Sarah Scheffler, Eran Tromer, and Mayank Varia. Formalizing human ingenuity: A quantitative framework for coyright law’s substantial similarity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01230, 2022. Google Scholar
  52. Weiyan Shi, Aiqi Cui, Evan Li, Ruoxi Jia, and Zhou Yu. Selective differential privacy for language modeling. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2848-2859, 2022. Google Scholar
  53. Svs.M. Sid & Marty Krofft TV Prod., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 1977), 1977. Google Scholar
  54. Svs.W. SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd., 64 F. Supp. 3d 755, 762 , 2014. Google Scholar
  55. U.S.C. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), 2006. Google Scholar
  56. Uvs.K. Universal City Studios v. Kamar Industries, Inc., 217 USPQ. (BNA) 1165 (S.D Tex 1982), 1982. Google Scholar
  57. Siva Vaidhyanathan. Copyrights and copywrongs. In Copyrights and Copywrongs. New York University Press, 2001. Google Scholar
  58. N vs. U. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F.2d 119, (2st Cir., 1930) , 1930. Google Scholar
  59. Nikhil Vyas, Sham Kakade, and Boaz Barak. Provable copyright protection for generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10870, 2023. Google Scholar
  60. Wvs.G. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (Docket 21–869)]. . Google Scholar
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact