In that case, is that difference here that it's not humanely possible to train on world's information compared to a single human getting inspired by specific works. And hence an algo doing that is violation?
If we had these LLMs 30 years ago would J.K Rowling's books ever have existed?
All your question does is give people an excuse to make up alternate history in order to argue whichever side of the argument they already believe. It serves little purpose in the dialogue of defining AI and human creativity.
Quite possibly, it depends on what specifically is meant by style and the degree to which the new work is transformative.
Sharing a few surface levels elements like that is fine, but if a one page description could equally well be used to describe both works you’re well over the line.
lots of disney animations could've been described this way. And it's because they took storylines from well known folk tales and adapted it.
the idea of a teen wizard/witch going to a special school, fighting a villain, etc, doesn't seem to be copyrightable. While the russian ripoff version seems very similar and skirt the line between a copy and an original work, there's plenty of room where such a story could've been told and not be an infringement.
https://www.amazon.com/Tanya-Grotter-i-pensne-Noya/dp/569984...
You can’t copyright the idea of a wizardry school for preteens. You can’t copyright a style.
You can definitely trademark your own name.
A wizardry school for preteens isn’t on its own particularly unusual. But the question becomes how similar would the works be if the original was never published. You aren’t in the clear of a few paragraph book summery would apply equally well to both works. Barring the normal exceptions, Spaceballs is making reference to other works not just imitating them.
It’s also not a copyright violation because the question of how similar it is to the idea of Harry Potter is irrelevant with regards to copyright.
If it was too similar and it was actively confusing consumers then it would be an issue of trademark.
By making the protagonist a girl without glasses it does enough to differentiate itself that no reasonable confusion would ensue.
As long as the books don’t contain verbatim copies of text from Harry Potter they are non-infringing!
“Despite its reputation in Russia and the many books it has spawned, the series is not available in English translation, because of the first book having been judged a breach of copyright.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter
So, respectfully you are simply mistaken.
That doesn’t mean I am incorrect about style not being copyrightable.
Anyway, many Russian works would be considered copyright infringement in other countries. The country however has minimal interest in respecting foreign copyrights. So if that’s your benchmark I can see why you might assume more leeway than actually exists.
Otherwise I would have done the bare minimum of reading the Wikipedia entry on the book. All I did was Google for “Harry Potter knockoff”, saw that the book was on Amazon, and thought that was enough.
Reading the Wikipedia article it is clear that this series took much more than just the idea of a wizardry school and copied verbatim plot elements. It was not the right example to use.
Here’s what I mean by style. Reggae music. How different is one reggae song from another? What about when a reggae musician sells the rights to one song and then write another song in their own style? Are they infringing on the previous work they just sold to a music publisher?
Here’s what happened when John Fogerty was sued for sounding like John Fogerty:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-fogerty-...
This logic seemed pretty sound to the jury. It only took two hours of deliberation for the jury to determine that the two songs didn’t meet the legal standard of being “substantially similar” that would have constituted copyright infringement. The Fogerty camp let out a collective “huzzah!”
The case was litigated rather than being thrown out because style is legally recognized as falling under copyright. “In 1993 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down that appeal, though, on the same grounds—the original suit had been neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith.”
The Supreme Court didn’t disagree, they ruled on a different matter.
That Ms. Rowling and her publisher won doesn’t mean that style is covered by copyright either. It could just mean they had a more expensive legal team.
One of the key elements of copyright is this doctrine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin...
An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular story or characters involved, or in any artwork contained in the book, but generally not in the idea or genre of the story.
Also, let’s take a step back. What do you think is a fair outcome, that once John Fogerty sold the rights to one CCR song that he is no longer able to write music? Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre?
Does the first music publisher to buy a reggae song now own the rights to every single reggae song produced after?
What are you arguing for?
> Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre?
As the court case you mentioned shows genre isn’t specific enough to be problematic. I can’t draw a clear line in the sand and say this is safe because ultimately that’s up to the courts to determine in each instance. But, it is important to understand the general areas that are risky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor...
Appellate Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote a dissenting opinion: “that the judgement allows for protection over musical style”
That doesn’t mean “style” is enough to lose a copyright case, but shows such things are potentially problematic.
Here's a concise explanation of why this was a terrible ruling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1COYitP8hI
If the entire music industry operated in such a manner it would suffocate creativity.
I think what you’re really trying to do is win an argument that supports your opinions on LLMs.
Generally speaking, the Robin Thicke case was an aberration. If it was the norm then the music industry would look incredibly different. As in, there wouldn’t be a music industry.
We can go back and forth cherry-picking court cases or we can discuss the doctrines that courts are encouraged to follow, like the idea-expression distinction.
An overwhelming number of copyright cases have been decided based on this doctrine! It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise!
Winning a court case isn’t safe, getting the court case thrown out before it needs to be litigated is. You really don’t want to be in a position where someone with deep pockets can make a reasonable argument for infringement.
The question of LLM’s is really secondary. It’s likely they could win, but that in itself is very dangerous territory.
What about a drum pattern like a four-on-the-floor disco beat? What about entire genres of electronic dance music?
What about chord progressions? Should songwriters avoid the I-IV-V? Do you know how many songs are ii-vi-V-I?
What about literally any classic country song?
Do The Strokes owe the band Television royalties for imitating their driving 8th note, interwoven guitar riffs?
Here's a good conversation around the roots of an aphorism typically attributed to Picasso, "good artists copy, great artists steal.":
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/
Are you a songwriter or a musician? If so, how can you make music without imitating any number of factors? Do you make your own instruments? Do you have your own harmonic system with your own scales?
I can't think of any creed that is more destined to result in terrible art than "playing it safe"!
EDIT: Oh, "don't imitate anyone" is a close second! The one-two punch of playing it safe and not imitating anyone is just, I mean, I can't even...
The line isn’t anywhere close to the hyperbole you and many other people are bringing up. Don’t copy other peoples work isn’t some unrealistic burden, it’s the basic foundation of copyright.
I am a songwriter and a recording artist. I and every other musician I’ve ever worked with have conversed in the language of our predecessors. We constantly listen to other records while making our own and borrow drum patterns, guitar sounds, chord progressions… just as all of our favorite musicians did before us.
If you don’t do this and you go off on some quest for pure originality, you are engaged in pure narcissism and you will make terrible art.
Show me your favorite record and I can break down where every single element of every single song came from.
I'm going to guess that you have basically no experience making music. Here's just a couple of the records I've made:
https://williamcotton.bandcamp.com/album/melencolia-i
https://willieandallie.bandcamp.com/album/between-a-rock-and...
However, your actual defense is a lack of serious earnings. If you habitually copy significant portions of your work don’t assume it’s actually legal rather than simply not worth suing over.
If you’re concerned about actual credentials my connection to this stuff is through major motion pictures which means serious paranoia around IP. They are actually concerned about being sued and take actual precautions.
Have a listen to my albums and you can judge for yourself how much copyright infringement I’m guilt of…