Are neural nets (the weights file) copyrightable?

[Ckappe]

The most sensible way will be to look at NNs as a sub-routine to the code using the weights.. so the NN is seen as an integral part of the original program using it, not as a separate stand-alone entity. and thereby it would always fall under and inherit the copyright, licensing of the main().
Just as a few variable names is not copyrightable by themselves the sum of code including these names and weights could be copyrighted as a whole.


This will also solve most commercial aspects. It would not grant any copyright to stand-alone "NETs" but it would protect AI systems where the NN is a part to produce a complete AI.

My view is that current old IP-rights legislation, in general, is broken in this digital era. It's a huge problem and blocker of innovation by itself today by focusing more on the "ownership", IP-holder rights, than the IP-creator, prior art, uniqueness, the common good, and the promotion of knowledge sharing.

[towforce]

The most sensible way will be to look at NNs as a sub-routine to the code using the weights.. so the NN is seen as an integral part of the original program using it, not as a separate stand-alone entity. and thereby it would always fall under and inherit the copyright, licensing of the main().
Just as a few variable names is not copyrightable by themselves the sum of code including these names and weights could be copyrighted as a whole.

I agree. I don't know, but my opinion is that if you took GPL code and moved some classes into a separate library, but still used them in exactly the same way, you'd still be obliged to GPL the new code. If this is correct, then it strongly implies that FF2's NN weights file should be under a GPL license.

[dkappe]

I agree. I don't know, but my opinion is that if you took GPL code and moved some classes into a separate library, but still used them in exactly the same way, you'd still be obliged to GPL the new code. If this is correct, then it strongly implies that FF2's NN weights file should be under a GPL license.

Don’t make me quote the GPL FAQ again. In short, no.

[gaard]

The following thought occurred to me... if Chessbase is claiming that the FF2 weights file is not subject to the GPLv3 that is tantamount to saying that the weights file is not subject to copyright.

I don't think that follows. It could be that they believe it falls under a different license.

As to the original question of if they are copyrightable at all, FWIW, many big businesses seem to think so and have gone to great lengths to detect infringements for their own benefit and that of their clients. For example, see https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2018 ... ermarking/

[Michel]

I agree. I don't know, but my opinion is that if you took GPL code and moved some classes into a separate library, but still used them in exactly the same way, you'd still be obliged to GPL the new code. If this is correct, then it strongly implies that FF2's NN weights file should be under a GPL license.

Don’t make me quote the GPL FAQ again. In short, no.

Can you please stop this. It has been amply demonstrated that the GPL faq does not cover the SF situation where the interpreted program enhances the interpreter.

[chrisw]

The following thought occurred to me... if Chessbase is claiming that the FF2 weights file is not subject to the GPLv3 that is tantamount to saying that the weights file is not subject to copyright.

I don't think that follows. It could be that they believe it falls under a different license.

As to the original question of if they are copyrightable at all, FWIW, many big businesses seem to think so and have gone to great lengths to detect infringements for their own benefit and that of their clients. For example, see https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2018 ... ermarking/

Obviously capital would like to privatise as much data as possible. Equally obviously capital and its representatives will make as much noise as they can to scare off free use of data. There is effectively no case law, nobody wants to actually risk a legal affirmation that numbers can’t be copyrighted, so they PR and threaten, quietly or otherwise instead.
Curiously enough HGM has been informing posters here that they’ll get themselves sued for defamation by ChessBase, and he is also busy asserting that NN data is copyright. Even asserting he has inside info on impending legals, IIRC from past few days reading. Mod: personal insult removed
Meanwhile, numbers produced by machines are un-copyrightable. Quite possibly capital will assert enough pressure to get laws passed to change things in its favour, but right now, without some very large (in value) example cases and/or some changes passed in law somehow, the situation, like it or not, remains. Numbers are free.

[dkappe]

I agree. I don't know, but my opinion is that if you took GPL code and moved some classes into a separate library, but still used them in exactly the same way, you'd still be obliged to GPL the new code. If this is correct, then it strongly implies that FF2's NN weights file should be under a GPL license.

Don’t make me quote the GPL FAQ again. In short, no.

Can you please stop this. It has been amply demonstrated that the GPL faq does not cover the SF situation where the interpreted program enhances the interpreter.

You are once again mistaken. That’s a different question. This is the question where the answer begins “In general this is legally impossible.”

Programmers and the law. That’s why they have the FAQ. You should read them and not wave your hands and claim that anything has been amply demonstrated.

[syzygy]

Neural nets are data-flow computers, and the network weights are a binary representation of the program they run. That I use a computer program as an aid to designing it should also not matter. Neither being a program, nor being a generated with the aid of a program exclude copyrightability. It all depends on whether their went sufficient human creativity into the process of generating it. It doesn't even have to be relevant creativity, as the example of variable names shows...

It does have to be relevant creativity, i.e. creativity that is still perceptible in the final result, at least in general.
If you use a program to generate an image, you will have copyright on the image only to the extent that the image has traits that express your free creativity. If the program is a fractal generator and you have used a lot of creative effort to invent a funny way of coming up with some parameter values, you will not have copyright on the generated image.

I suspect it is not different for computer programs, i.e. creative variable names in the source code that are stripped from the executable do not make the executable copyrightable. The copyright will have to be based on creative aspects of the source code that are still present in the executable. However, I may be wrong on this, and if I am wrong it is because copyright law was specifically extended by the US and EU legislators to protect computer programs including the object code: the rules that apply are different from the normal rules.

Still, the weights of a neural net are just numbers somehow representing non-copyrightable functionality. There is no free creativity expressed by a human and therefore no copyright.

[Michel]

So the positions are with respect to nets is SF:

• A net is data and not a creative work, so not copyrightable.

• A net is data but a creative work, so copyrightable and not falling under the GPL.

• A net is code but not covered by the GPL since SF is just a dumb interpreter (cfr the GPL faq).

• A is net is code which is linked to the other code in SF so the GPL extends to it

[towforce]

So the positions are with respect to nets is SF:

• A net is data and not a creative work, so not copyrightable.

• A net is data but a creative work, so copyrightable and not falling under the GPL.

• A net is code but not covered by the GPL since SF is just a dumb interpreter (cfr the GPL faq).

• A is net is code which is linked to the other code in SF so the GPL extends to it

Although there have been no test cases, I did go to the trouble of finding some expert opinion, which is that copyright for computer generated art lies with the company that commissioned it - link.

As far as I'm concerned, that settles that issue (until there's an actual court case).

I have two doubts in the case of FF2 though:

1. Whether their net constitutes "original" work

2. Whether separating a piece of software into its own file frees it from the GPL license. If it does, then IMO it makes a nonsense of the GPL license.