Hacker News

points by RobotToaster 11 hours ago | 0 comments

Isn't it basically settled that model weights can't be copyrighted as they don't pass the threshold of originality?

yes. I don't understand why people are saying these licenses matter. Much of these terms are likely unenforceable.

Only one way to find out!

I’m pretty sure they’re covered by the so-called sui generis protection of databases within the EU/EEA at least. That one is about protecting the effort and investment, not originality of expression.

[–] limagnolia 1 hour ago

"In the meaning of the European Union Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases,the term database refers to a collection of independent works, data or other materials, which have been arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and have been made individually accessible by electronic or other means. In the meaning of the Directive the data or materials:

    must not be linked, or must be capable of separation without losing their informative content;
    must be organised according to specific criteria, which means that only planned collections are covered;
    must be individually accessible – mere storage of data is not covered by the term database."

It seems like model weights does not clear the definition of a database in EU law- notably, they are not a collection of individual works that are individually accessible.

https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/regional...?

[–] MisterMunchkin 9 hours ago

That doesn’t sound right. The weights are incredibly valuable and expensive to train.

[–] terribleperson 7 hours ago

Copyright doesn't care whether it's expensive. The fact that someone else, with the infrastructure and training data could get the same or almost the same weights makes it obvious there's no human originality in the weights, which means they aren't eligible for copyright. Some aspect of the infrastructure or processing of the training data might be copyrightable (or patentable), but the weights themselves? No human originality. No copyright.

[–] andix 9 hours ago

Looks like the consensus is much more leaning into the direction of non copyrightable.

[–] p_l 11 hours ago

In EU especially it's already settled, afaik, as are direct model outputs

[–] athrowaway3z 10 hours ago

Its actually not settled yet wrt copyright.

However, there is a more straightforward solution. The allows general use inside a company. The license blocks the "Model-as-a-Service".

So instead, any GPU holder can provide a 'Infrastructure-as-a-service' and have clients provide the model, and then tell the clients that as an optimization they can also provide just the hash and they'll load it from their memory.

I think its good that this license pushes the ecosystem towards such a generic-utility framework, but as a moat to protect a business its banking on most companies being lazy and wasteful.

That pays off more than people like to admit.

[–] singpolyma3 7 hours ago

I've not heard anything about model outputs. Do you have an actual case to cite?

[–] p_l 5 hours ago

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2026/7969...

Unless considerable amount of lobbying reverses it in a new directive/regulation, that's the case on model outputs - Originally I learnt of it from briefing prepared by lawyers regarding EU laws on AI.

[–] limagnolia 1 hour ago

>> The emerging consensus across different jurisdictions is that purely AI‑generated content with minimal to no human creativity does not qualify for copyright protection. By contrast, works created with the use of AI‑applications may still enjoy copyright protection, where substantial human creativity has been exercised. Whether this threshold is met must be assessed on a case‑by‑case basis.

This makes sense, I believe it will eventually become the clear case in the US as well. However, it does leave open the case where a human carefully crafts a series of prompts to produce an creative work that qualifies for copyright.

Further, this does not appear to be binding on courts within the EU?

[–] incompatible 3 hours ago

It seems basically that LLM output is public domain, but a bit of human-generated content can be mixed in (whatever is enough to pass the "threshold of originality") and then the overall work can be copyrighted. Much like republishing a public domain book and adding an introduction or a few footnotes (but harder to extract the public domain component.)

But this all says nothing about the original question, about whether the weights can be copyrighted.

[–] viraptor 8 hours ago

Can you link to a specific ruling that supports this?