Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Foundation Models and Fair Use

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.15715 v1 pith:ZKVFCHWD submitted 2023-03-28 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.LG
keywords modelsfairfoundationcopyrightedcontentdatamodelpotential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Existing foundation models are trained on copyrighted material. Deploying these models can pose both legal and ethical risks when data creators fail to receive appropriate attribution or compensation. In the United States and several other countries, copyrighted content may be used to build foundation models without incurring liability due to the fair use doctrine. However, there is a caveat: If the model produces output that is similar to copyrighted data, particularly in scenarios that affect the market of that data, fair use may no longer apply to the output of the model. In this work, we emphasize that fair use is not guaranteed, and additional work may be necessary to keep model development and deployment squarely in the realm of fair use. First, we survey the potential risks of developing and deploying foundation models based on copyrighted content. We review relevant U.S. case law, drawing parallels to existing and potential applications for generating text, source code, and visual art. Experiments confirm that popular foundation models can generate content considerably similar to copyrighted material. Second, we discuss technical mitigations that can help foundation models stay in line with fair use. We argue that more research is needed to align mitigation strategies with the current state of the law. Lastly, we suggest that the law and technical mitigations should co-evolve. For example, coupled with other policy mechanisms, the law could more explicitly consider safe harbors when strong technical tools are used to mitigate infringement harms. This co-evolution may help strike a balance between intellectual property and innovation, which speaks to the original goal of fair use. But we emphasize that the strategies we describe here are not a panacea and more work is needed to develop policies that address the potential harms of foundation models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 9 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. AI Native Games: A Survey and Roadmap

    cs.AI 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper proposes a counterfactual definition of AI-native games, screens 53 examples, introduces a G/N taxonomy, and outlines a research roadmap for the field.

  2. Towards Evaluation for Real-World LLM Unlearning

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DCUE evaluates LLM unlearning by comparing core-token confidence score distributions of the unlearned model and the original model, corrected by a validation set, using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

Pith tools