How do data owners say no? A case study of data consent mechanisms in web-scraped vision-language AI training datasets

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08637v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 01:01:15 GMT
• Title: How do data owners say no? A case study of data consent mechanisms in web-scraped vision-language AI training datasets
• Abstract summary: We aim to reveal information about data owners' consent to AI scraping and training, and study how it's expressed in DataComp.<n>We estimate at least 122M of samples exhibit some indication of copyright notice in CommonPool.<n>Our holistic methods and findings show that data owners rely on various channels to convey data consent, of which current AI data collection pipelines do not entirely respect.
• Score: 2.790280665168348
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The internet has become the main source of data to train modern text-to-image or vision-language models, yet it is increasingly unclear whether web-scale data collection practices for training AI systems adequately respect data owners' wishes. Ignoring the owner's indication of consent around data usage not only raises ethical concerns but also has recently been elevated into lawsuits around copyright infringement cases. In this work, we aim to reveal information about data owners' consent to AI scraping and training, and study how it's expressed in DataComp, a popular dataset of 12.8 billion text-image pairs. We examine both the sample-level information, including the copyright notice, watermarking, and metadata, and the web-domain-level information, such as a site's Terms of Service (ToS) and Robots Exclusion Protocol. We estimate at least 122M of samples exhibit some indication of copyright notice in CommonPool, and find that 60\% of the samples in the top 50 domains come from websites with ToS that prohibit scraping. Furthermore, we estimate 9-13\% with 95\% confidence interval of samples from CommonPool to contain watermarks, where existing watermark detection methods fail to capture them in high fidelity. Our holistic methods and findings show that data owners rely on various channels to convey data consent, of which current AI data collection pipelines do not entirely respect. These findings highlight the limitations of the current dataset curation/release practice and the need for a unified data consent framework taking AI purposes into consideration.

Related papers

• A Common Pool of Privacy Problems: Legal and Technical Lessons from a Large-Scale Web-Scraped Machine Learning Dataset [12.094673476388639]
  We ask: What are the legal privacy implications of web-scraped machine learning datasets?<n>In an empirical study of a popular training dataset, we find significant presence of personally identifiable information despite sanitization efforts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T17:40:05Z)
• Evidencing Unauthorized Training Data from AI Generated Content using Information Isotopes [0.0]
  In a rush to stay competitive, some institutions may inadvertently or even deliberately include unauthorized data for AI training.<n>We introduce the concept of information isotopes and elucidate their properties in tracing training data within opaque AI systems.<n>We propose an information isotope tracing method designed to identify and provide evidence of unauthorized data usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T07:35:59Z)
• A Dataset and Benchmark for Copyright Infringement Unlearning from Text-to-Image Diffusion Models [52.49582606341111]
  Copyright law confers creators the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and monetize their creative works. Recent progress in text-to-image generation has introduced formidable challenges to copyright enforcement. We introduce a novel pipeline that harmonizes CLIP, ChatGPT, and diffusion models to curate a dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T11:14:01Z)
• Domain Watermark: Effective and Harmless Dataset Copyright Protection is Closed at Hand [96.26251471253823]
  backdoor-based dataset ownership verification (DOV) is currently the only feasible approach to protect the copyright of open-source datasets. We make watermarked models (trained on the protected dataset) correctly classify some hard' samples that will be misclassified by the benign model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T11:23:05Z)
• Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarks [70.39633252935445]
  Data contamination has become prevalent and challenging with the rise of models pretrained on large automatically-crawled corpora. For closed models, the training data becomes a trade secret, and even for open models, it is not trivial to detect contamination. We propose three strategies that can make a difference: (1) Test data made public should be encrypted with a public key and licensed to disallow derivative distribution; (2) demand training exclusion controls from closed API holders, and protect your test data by refusing to evaluate without them; and (3) avoid data which appears with its solution on the internet, and release the web-page context of internet-derived
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T12:23:38Z)
• Did You Train on My Dataset? Towards Public Dataset Protection with Clean-Label Backdoor Watermarking [54.40184736491652]
  We propose a backdoor-based watermarking approach that serves as a general framework for safeguarding public-available data. By inserting a small number of watermarking samples into the dataset, our approach enables the learning model to implicitly learn a secret function set by defenders. This hidden function can then be used as a watermark to track down third-party models that use the dataset illegally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-20T21:54:30Z)
• Membership Inference Attacks against Synthetic Data through Overfitting Detection [84.02632160692995]
  We argue for a realistic MIA setting that assumes the attacker has some knowledge of the underlying data distribution. We propose DOMIAS, a density-based MIA model that aims to infer membership by targeting local overfitting of the generative model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T11:27:39Z)
• Black-box Dataset Ownership Verification via Backdoor Watermarking [67.69308278379957]
  We formulate the protection of released datasets as verifying whether they are adopted for training a (suspicious) third-party model. We propose to embed external patterns via backdoor watermarking for the ownership verification to protect them. Specifically, we exploit poison-only backdoor attacks ($e.g.$, BadNets) for dataset watermarking and design a hypothesis-test-guided method for dataset verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-04T05:32:20Z)
• AI-based Re-identification of Behavioral Clickstream Data [0.0]
  This paper demonstrates that similar techniques can be applied to successfully re-identify individuals purely based on their behavioral patterns. The mere resemblance of behavioral patterns between records is sufficient to correctly attribute behavioral data to identified individuals. We also demonstrate how synthetic data can offer a viable alternative, that is shown to be resilient against our introduced AI-based re-identification attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-21T16:49:00Z)

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.