The government has decided on a framework requiring AI operators to disclose information about the training data used for generative AI. The goal is to let copyright holders and AI users check whether their works were included in the training data upon request, but on 5ch, opinions split sharply over how to interpret Article 30-4 (“information analysis”) of the Copyright Act.
The “training is basically legal” camp and the “if similarity shows up, it could be illegal” camp traded blows citing past court rulings, and the thread turned into a marathon argument.
Operators will post information about their generative AI’s training process, the types of training data used, and how it was collected on their websites. If a copyright holder or AI user requests it, and certain conditions are met, operators will disclose whether copyrighted works are included in the training data — creating a system that lets people check for possible copyright infringement.
Source: news.yahoo.co.jp / Original article here
So if it was used in training, does that automatically make it copyright infringement?
>>4
If the copyright holder decides it's bad, it becomes illegal.
Training isn't unconditionally allowed no matter what.
If the copyright holder decides it's bad, it becomes illegal.
Training isn't unconditionally allowed no matter what.
>>5
That first line is way too out there lol
That first line is way too out there lol
>>9
No, I'm dead serious.
Even training becomes illegal if the copyright holder judges they've suffered a disadvantage from it.
Like, say, if it was used in a way tied to content revenue.
No, I'm dead serious.
Even training becomes illegal if the copyright holder judges they've suffered a disadvantage from it.
Like, say, if it was used in a way tied to content revenue.
>>18
Revenue is about the output, not the training though, isn't it?
Revenue is about the output, not the training though, isn't it?
Why do AI illustrators fly into a rage the moment someone just asks what art style their training data came from?
Is asking not allowed or something?
Is asking not allowed or something?
>>14
Probably because they don't actually know.
Probably because they don't actually know.
>>18
"Illegal if the copyright holder says so" — what a broken trump card.
At that rate you could just shut the courts down.
"Illegal if the copyright holder says so" — what a broken trump card.
At that rate you could just shut the courts down.
>>19
It IS a trump card.
1. Why is it "basically legal"? Japan's Copyright Act (Article 30-4) has a special exception: if the use is for "information analysis," you can use data without the copyright holder's permission. Since an AI reading huge amounts of data and analyzing features and patterns (training) is considered to fall under this "information analysis," no permission is required in principle.
2. Cases where it's NOT clearly legal (risk of being illegal). The following cases may violate the law.
Using it for human enjoyment instead of the AI: copying a work not to have the AI draw something, but purely so a human can enjoy the copy.
Training on pirated material: collecting and training on data known to have been illegally uploaded, like from piracy sites.
Cases that seriously harm the rights holder's interests: deliberately targeting and training on only a specific artist's works in a way that takes away that artist's work.
It IS a trump card.
1. Why is it "basically legal"? Japan's Copyright Act (Article 30-4) has a special exception: if the use is for "information analysis," you can use data without the copyright holder's permission. Since an AI reading huge amounts of data and analyzing features and patterns (training) is considered to fall under this "information analysis," no permission is required in principle.
2. Cases where it's NOT clearly legal (risk of being illegal). The following cases may violate the law.
Using it for human enjoyment instead of the AI: copying a work not to have the AI draw something, but purely so a human can enjoy the copy.
Training on pirated material: collecting and training on data known to have been illegally uploaded, like from piracy sites.
Cases that seriously harm the rights holder's interests: deliberately targeting and training on only a specific artist's works in a way that takes away that artist's work.
>>20
What's with the sudden essay-length lecture right after "it IS a trump card"? If that logic actually worked in practice, nobody would be fighting about this.
What's with the sudden essay-length lecture right after "it IS a trump card"? If that logic actually worked in practice, nobody would be fighting about this.
>>20
Exactly.
This is how believers twist logic among themselves until even the generation itself becomes "okay."
Exactly.
This is how believers twist logic among themselves until even the generation itself becomes "okay."
>>21
So let's remember: training is fine except when it falls outside "information analysis" — that part's still a no-go.
So let's remember: training is fine except when it falls outside "information analysis" — that part's still a no-go.
>>23
"Let's remember" — who do you think you are, playing teacher? Where's your source for this "anything outside information analysis is a no-go" ruling?
"Let's remember" — who do you think you are, playing teacher? Where's your source for this "anything outside information analysis is a no-go" ruling?
Even if someone's art style happens to get reproduced by accident, that still counts as "use not intended to enjoy the thoughts or feelings expressed in the copyrighted work," so…
>>38
That's exactly the kind of argument that doesn't fly in the world of content rights holders.
For example, there are actual court cases where someone happened to draw something extremely similar, it was judged highly similar, and they lost in court.
That's exactly the kind of argument that doesn't fly in the world of content rights holders.
For example, there are actual court cases where someone happened to draw something extremely similar, it was judged highly similar, and they lost in court.
>>38
So just chanting that phrase makes style reproduction invincible? Then what exactly are all these people fighting about?
So just chanting that phrase makes style reproduction invincible? Then what exactly are all these people fighting about?
What happens when someone says "the AI says so" and then gets told "actually that's wrong"?
All they'll be able to do is whine "but the AI said so!"
All they'll be able to do is whine "but the AI said so!"
>>49
Pulling from actual court cases is credible enough for me.
Pulling from actual court cases is credible enough for me.
>>49
What do you mean "what do you mean" — it's just having the AI produce its sources, that's all.
What do you mean "what do you mean" — it's just having the AI produce its sources, that's all.
"Use not intended to enjoy the thoughts or feelings expressed in the copyrighted work"
As long as this applies, normal use doesn't become illegal.
As long as this applies, normal use doesn't become illegal.
>>73
It's rough how you're treating that one phrase like a magic spell.
You're just declaring victory without even defining what "normal" means.
It's rough how you're treating that one phrase like a magic spell.
You're just declaring victory without even defining what "normal" means.
>>73
There are cases where something ended up too similar and got ruled out on similarity grounds, so it's not always the case.
Unfortunately.
There are cases where something ended up too similar and got ruled out on similarity grounds, so it's not always the case.
Unfortunately.
No, it wouldn't be illegal.
Under Article 30-4 of the Copyright Act, it's legal if the use is judged to be "not intended to enjoy the thoughts or feelings expressed in the copyrighted work."
As long as no one deliberately extracts something hidden in the model on purpose, nothing gets infringed.
Under Article 30-4 of the Copyright Act, it's legal if the use is judged to be "not intended to enjoy the thoughts or feelings expressed in the copyrighted work."
As long as no one deliberately extracts something hidden in the model on purpose, nothing gets infringed.
>>109
You're saying it won't be judged that way, then turn around and say "if it's judged legal, it's legal"?
Maybe start by rethinking your premise.
Like in the article at >>1, there's a whole trend toward protecting and disclosing intellectual property — if you can't even consider why that's happening and just keep chanting "legal, legal," you're starting to sound like a kid throwing a tantrum.
You're saying it won't be judged that way, then turn around and say "if it's judged legal, it's legal"?
Maybe start by rethinking your premise.
Like in the article at >>1, there's a whole trend toward protecting and disclosing intellectual property — if you can't even consider why that's happening and just keep chanting "legal, legal," you're starting to sound like a kid throwing a tantrum.
>>109
Aren't you just treating Article 30-4 like a magic spell?
If "stuff hidden in there is safe" were really the logic, there'd be no reason for this disclosure push to even come up.
Aren't you just treating Article 30-4 like a magic spell?
If "stuff hidden in there is safe" were really the logic, there'd be no reason for this disclosure push to even come up.
Article 30-4 doesn't say a single word about generation, you know.
Not sure what you're misunderstanding, but still.
Not sure what you're misunderstanding, but still.
>>119
That's why this guy just keeps asking Chappy (5ch slang for ChatGPT) and can't develop the argument any further than that, so he just keeps repeating the same line over and over — ironically, he's starting to sound like an AI himself.
He thinks just saying this one thing is enough, but he's got the premise wrong from the start… it's honestly kind of sad.
That's why this guy just keeps asking Chappy (5ch slang for ChatGPT) and can't develop the argument any further than that, so he just keeps repeating the same line over and over — ironically, he's starting to sound like an AI himself.
He thinks just saying this one thing is enough, but he's got the premise wrong from the start… it's honestly kind of sad.
>>129
Yeah, classic true believer.
Article 30-4 in the first place only lifts copyright restrictions in specific situations — everything else still falls under normal copyright law.
So not all training automatically becomes legal.
Yeah, classic true believer.
Article 30-4 in the first place only lifts copyright restrictions in specific situations — everything else still falls under normal copyright law.
So not all training automatically becomes legal.
>>136
He went quiet the moment someone pushed back — guess that's just how this guy operates.
He went quiet the moment someone pushed back — guess that's just how this guy operates.
>>136
What, is there some "lift restrictions" button you press? Article 30-4 is just a narrow exception — it's not a blanket pardon that makes all training legal.
What, is there some "lift restrictions" button you press? Article 30-4 is just a narrow exception — it's not a blanket pardon that makes all training legal.
*This article is excerpted and summarized from the 5ch (Nnews VIP) thread “[Breaking] Government decides on law/guidelines pushing disclosure of AI-generated training data — is this the end for AI illustrations and videos?.”
Leave a Reply