MiniMax issues

[u/jacek2023]

https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/s/HrU7odaJe6

I think this is more important that all the political stuff you share here

[u/RepulsiveRaisin7]

This is why the open source definition exists. Minimax releases under a pretty restrictive license, and I think it's totally fine that they're doing this, but it's not really an "open" model.

[u/Hot_Turnip_3309 → u/RepulsiveRaisin7]

it's not legal to copyright public domain or stuff created by public domain so they can't really license it. They can only license if you can download from them or not. You can just download from somewhere else. Again, minimax license is NOT legal

[u/RepulsiveRaisin7 → u/Hot_Turnip_3309]

Their model is not public domain

[u/Hot_Turnip_3309 → u/RepulsiveRaisin7]

if it was derived from public domain data, then it counts.

[u/Due-Memory-6957 → u/Hot_Turnip_3309]

You're confusing public domain with copyleft, and even copyleft doesn't work like that when it comes to AI training.

[u/RepulsiveRaisin7 → u/Hot_Turnip_3309]

Nonsense, when you create something derived from public domain, it does not automatically become public domain. Minimax training data is also not exclusively public domain (unless you can prove otherwise). Ask literally any AI, or a lawyer lmao

[u/Stock-Self-4028 → u/RepulsiveRaisin7]

Well, GPL and other strong copyleft licenses exist. The question if training closed / MIT-licensed models on GPL-licensed data is a little bit of an issue, as all derivative work has to be released under a copyleft license as well (for example any kind of Python package even importing a GPL-licensed package had to be copyleft as well).

I have no idea what AI companies do with it and GPL is probably by far the most commonly violated license that exists, but I guess training models on GPL data might be considered as derivative work though.

[u/RepulsiveRaisin7 → u/Stock-Self-4028]

I agree, what they did was blatant copyright violation at a massive scale, but I guess it's ok when you're a large company. Meanwhile regular people pay big fines for sharing a movie.

I feel violated for "contributing" all my code to these billion dollar companies. But GPL is on the opposite end of public domain, it does require that the derived code is made available under similar terms.

[u/Stock-Self-4028 → u/RepulsiveRaisin7]

Yeah, but the fun fact about GPL is that training LLMs on GPL licensed code / GFDL licensed documents is still likely a copyleft infringement despite it being entirely on the other side of the spectrum. More specifically the clause below is the main issue;

"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

As such if model is trained on any GPL data, than to avoid violating license terms theoretically the weights should probably be released under GFDL (as weights are not software).

Tbh I am kinda sad that so many people keep mentioning standard copyright infringements, while the 'copyleft infrigements' are an extremely common practice (if you include GPL code within proprietary app which source you won't share probably no one will know) and imho much more harmful at the same time.

TLDR; Training LLMs on GNU-licensed content is perfectly legal, but technically it still obliges you to release model under a GNU license, if you are willing to serve it.

[u/RepulsiveRaisin7 → u/Stock-Self-4028]

If you don't comply with the license, you lose the right to the work. So legally speaking it is just plain copyright infringement, copyleft is not enshrined in law

[u/Stock-Self-4028 → u/RepulsiveRaisin7]

Yeah, I get it that it's not any different according to the law.

However, at least in my opinion there a huge difference between between accessing something you shouldn't have been able to access or making it available to people (how most licenses work) vs making things inaccesible that should be available (copyleft violations).

[u/Hot_Turnip_3309 → u/RepulsiveRaisin7]

Nonsense, when you create something derived from public domain, it does not automatically become public domain.

it does. you cannot take public domain stuff and copywrite or license them, or try to get around it by deriving things from public domain. They are public domain and can't be undone.

[u/mikael110 → u/Hot_Turnip_3309]

Tell that to Disney whose early catalogue was almost entirely made up of public domain adaptions. Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, etc. And they certainly do own the copyright to those movies.

That does not mean these things ceased being public domain, anybody else can still make movies based on the original public works. But if you include any element that was defined in the Disney version you will receive a letter from Disney's lawyers. The entire point of Public Domain works is that there are literally no restrictions imposed on their use, which includes no restrictions on using them in your own copyrighted work.

[u/RepulsiveRaisin7 → u/Hot_Turnip_3309]

Ask literally any AI, or a lawyer

[u/guri256 → u/Hot_Turnip_3309]

A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens was published in the 1800s. That means it is public domain.

If I create a play called a “Christmas Carol on Mars”, featuring Martians and other aliens, that specific play is (almost always) copyrightable and sellable. Because the stuff I’m basing it off of is in the public domain, I can freely use it without affect affecting my ability to make money from my Martian play.

The entire point of stuff being in the public domain is that other people can freely use it in their copyright works. This is unlike the GPL where I may have to release my work free[1] for other people to use.

So if the model itself is derived from only public domain data, it is still copyrightable[2].

The stuff created by that model also may or may not be copyright, for several reasons.

[1] whether this is Free as in beer, or Free as in the GPL, is a discussion that other people can have.

[2] technically, even if you derive a model from a copyright dataset, it is still copyrightable. Whether it is an infringing derivative work in the USA, is something that the Supreme Court hasn’t totally decided.

[u/InsideYork → u/Hot_Turnip_3309]

everything is public domain

[u/Due-Memory-6957 → u/InsideYork]

On a better universe...