The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07066v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:18:29 GMT
• Title: The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions
• Abstract summary: Artificial intelligence (AI) model creators commonly attach restrictive terms of use to both their models and their outputs.<n>This Article systematically assesses the enforceability of AI model terms of use and offers three contributions.
• Score: 4.314681767172961
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) model creators commonly attach restrictive terms of use to both their models and their outputs. These terms typically prohibit activities ranging from creating competing AI models to spreading disinformation. Often taken at face value, these terms are positioned by companies as key enforceable tools for preventing misuse, particularly in policy dialogs. But are these terms truly meaningful? There are myriad examples where these broad terms are regularly and repeatedly violated. Yet except for some account suspensions on platforms, no model creator has actually tried to enforce these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief. This is likely for good reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable. This Article systematically assesses of the enforceability of AI model terms of use and offers three contributions. First, we pinpoint a key problem: the artifacts that they protect, namely model weights and model outputs, are largely not copyrightable, making it unclear whether there is even anything to be licensed. Second, we examine the problems this creates for other enforcement. Recent doctrinal trends in copyright preemption may further undermine state-law claims, while other legal frameworks like the DMCA and CFAA offer limited recourse. Anti-competitive provisions likely fare even worse than responsible use provisions. Third, we provide recommendations to policymakers. There are compelling reasons for many provisions to be unenforceable: they chill good faith research, constrain competition, and create quasi-copyright ownership where none should exist. There are, of course, downsides: model creators have fewer tools to prevent harmful misuse. But we think the better approach is for statutory provisions, not private fiat, to distinguish between good and bad uses of AI, restricting the latter.

Related papers

• GoodDiffusion: Proactive Copyright Protection for Diffusion Bridge Models via Learnable Sample-specific Signatures [88.63093209858387]
  We propose GoodDiffusion, inspired by backdoor mechanisms, to enforce model-level use-time control.<n>GoodDiffusion preserves high-quality generation for authorized queries carrying valid signatures, yet refuses to generate for unauthorized inputs.<n>To strengthen security, we introduce a Learnable Signature Network (LSN) that assigns sample-specific signatures conditioned on each input.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T04:07:09Z)
• AnnoCaseLaw: A Richly-Annotated Dataset For Benchmarking Explainable Legal Judgment Prediction [56.797874973414636]
  AnnoCaseLaw is a first-of-its-kind dataset of 471 meticulously annotated U.S. Appeals Court negligence cases. Our dataset lays the groundwork for more human-aligned, explainable Legal Judgment Prediction models. Results demonstrate that LJP remains a formidable task, with application of legal precedent proving particularly difficult.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:14:48Z)
• RL, but don't do anything I wouldn't do [65.17999604409634]
  We show that the KL constraint is no longer reliable for controlling the behavior of an advanced RL agent. We propose a theoretical alternative that avoids this problem by replacing the "Don't do anything I wouldn't do" principle with "Don't do anything I mightn't do"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T17:18:17Z)
• LLMs and Memorization: On Quality and Specificity of Copyright Compliance [0.0]
  Memorization in large language models (LLMs) is a growing concern. LLMs have been shown to easily reproduce parts of their training data, including copyrighted work. This is an important problem to solve, as it may violate existing copyright laws as well as the European AI Act.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T18:01:52Z)
• Towards Explainability in Legal Outcome Prediction Models [64.00172507827499]
  We argue that precedent is a natural way of facilitating explainability for legal NLP models. By developing a taxonomy of legal precedent, we are able to compare human judges and neural models. We find that while the models learn to predict outcomes reasonably well, their use of precedent is unlike that of human judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T15:15:41Z)
• On the Standardization of Behavioral Use Clauses and Their Adoption for Responsible Licensing of AI [27.748532981456464]
  In 2018, licenses with behaviorial-use clauses were proposed to give developers a framework for releasing AI assets. As of the end of 2023, on the order of 40,000 software and model repositories have adopted responsible AI licenses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T22:29:42Z)
• Copyright Protection in Generative AI: A Technical Perspective [58.84343394349887]
  Generative AI has witnessed rapid advancement in recent years, expanding their capabilities to create synthesized content such as text, images, audio, and code. The high fidelity and authenticity of contents generated by these Deep Generative Models (DGMs) have sparked significant copyright concerns. This work delves into this issue by providing a comprehensive overview of copyright protection from a technical perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-04T04:00:33Z)
• The Ethics of Automating Legal Actors [58.81546227716182]
  We argue that automating the role of the judge raises difficult ethical challenges, in particular for common law legal systems. Our argument follows from the social role of the judge in actively shaping the law, rather than merely applying it. Even in the case the models could achieve human-level capabilities, there would still be remaining ethical concerns inherent in the automation of the legal process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-01T13:48:46Z)
• Where's the Liability in Harmful AI Speech? [42.97651263209725]
  Machine learning practitioners regularly "red team" models to identify problematic speech. We examine three liability regimes, tying them to common examples of red-teamed model behaviors. We argue that AI should not be categorically immune from liability in these scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-09T00:13:00Z)
• Training Is Everything: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Fair Training [9.653656920225858]
  Authors: Companies that use such content to train their AI engine often believe such usage should be considered "fair use" Authors: Copyright owners, as well as their supporters, consider the incorporation of copyrighted works into training sets for AI to constitute misappropriation of owners' intellectual property. We identify both strong and spurious arguments on both sides of this debate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T04:01:00Z)
• Foundation Models and Fair Use [96.04664748698103]
  In the U.S. and other countries, copyrighted content may be used to build foundation models without incurring liability due to the fair use doctrine. In this work, we survey the potential risks of developing and deploying foundation models based on copyrighted content. We discuss technical mitigations that can help foundation models stay in line with fair use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-28T03:58:40Z)
• Behavioral Use Licensing for Responsible AI [11.821476868900506]
  We advocate the use of licensing to enable legally enforceable behavioral use conditions on software and code. We envision how licensing may be implemented in accordance with existing responsible AI guidelines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-04T09:23:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.