RE: https://social.coop/@cwebber/117406703989668899
Yeahhhh 😎 I like this ruling! Mostly because the idea that #LLM output is never eligible for #copyright protection seemed pretty ridiculous (not that that seemed likely to survive for long in light of the recent clone of Adobe products). But also, the fact that the LLM output was used to make a direct competitor to the original, and the fact that it was minimally transformative, seem to be key factors in the analysis. So I wouldn't expect this to significantly change the situation with respect to LLM output in software in general, at least not by itself.
I've warned before that any FOSS project incorporating AI output is doing so at their peril.
Previously people leaned on a federal circuit ruling that was *declined to be taken up by the supreme court* interpreting it as a free-for-all to LLM license-wash any project in translation, or really to incorporate any such materials and they would be public domain.
But that doesn't mean we have an answer! We've yet to see!
Annnnnnnnnd: I think we're likely to have that perspective upended soon.
The third circuit issued a recent ruling in the *opposite direction* of the previously well cited federal ruling, that AI training on copyrighted material is NOT fair use: https://www.courthousenews.com/ai-training-of-copyrighted-material-not-fair-use-third-circuit/
Annnnndddddd.... with a bunch of people trying to make LLM-generated decompilation replacements for Adobe's entire suite, we're likely to suddenly see corporations rear up angrily.
Just wait till someone tries to vibewash a Nintendo game decompilation. Hey, what do you think is gonna happen?
@diazona The other ruling was also pretty limited in scope, so we now have two limited in scope rulings ;P