Skip to main content

Our digital future depends on our ability to access, use, and build on technology. A few media or political interests shouldn’t have unfair technological or legal advantages over the rest of us. Unfortunately, litigious copyright and patent owners can abuse the law to inhibit fair use and stifle competition. Internet service providers can give established content companies an advantage over startups and veto the choices you make in how to use the Internet. The Electronic Frontier Foundation fights against these unfair practices and defends digital creators, inventors, and ordinary technology users. We work to protect and strengthen fair use, innovation, open access, net neutrality, and your freedom to tinker.

In principle, intellectual property laws (or IP law, a catchall term for copyright, patents, and trademarks) should serve the public in a number of ways. Copyrights provide economic incentives for authors and artists to create and distribute new expressive works. Patents reward inventors for sharing new inventions with the public, granting them a temporary and limited monopoly on them in return for contributing to the public body of knowledge. Trademarks help protect customers by encouraging companies to make sure products match the quality standards the public expects.

Unfortunately, our IP regimes have strayed far from their original purposes. Too often, protections for free speech and innovation are seemingly forgotten as soon as someone cries “infringement.” An unproven allegation that your video or blog post infringes copyright, or that your domain name infringes someone’s trademark, can be enough to shut down perfectly lawful speech. A patent troll can kill a small company with a bogus lawsuit based on a questionable patent that shouldn’t have been issued in the first place.

Some of these laws simply haven’t adapted well to modern technology. A warped development in copyright law has made it illegal in many countries to modify or even look at the software built into the products you own, even if you’re doing it for completely lawful purposes. Copyright’s legal reinforcement of digital locks, paired with extreme criminal penalties for infringement, has intimidated a generation of would-be researchers, tinkerers, and inventors. And ongoing expansions of copyright law are often decided in secret, closed-door meetings before the public is ever allowed to debate them 

Imbalanced copyright law—and overzealous enforcement—generally favors powerful voices that have a great deal of influence in culture. Extreme copyright laws can intimidate new types of creators, especially those who use new media techniques to criticize dominant culture or powerful entities. Online platforms that support new, independent creators can only thrive when they don’t risk severe legal repercussions for their users’ activities. Similarly, when only the most privileged members of society have access to up-to-date research, only those members can build on that research to create new ideas and inventions. That’s why EFF supports open access to research, so everyone can build on and contribute to our knowledge commons.

Just as new voices can’t thrive if copyright law doesn’t recognize their rights, new players must also have access to the same resources as established ones. When Internet service providers can give preferential treatment to certain content or hardware companies, those technologies harden to the accelerating effect of competition and users can’t access new sources of information and innovative new services. EFF believes that Internet users should have the freedom to use technology however they like without service providers artificially restricting their experience.

Whether we’re fighting patent trolls in court; arguing in Congress for more balanced copyright laws; or urging governments, funders, and educational institutions to adopt open access policies, EFF is committed to building a society that supports creativity and innovation, where established players in the marketplace for technology and culture aren’t allowed to silence the next generation of creators.

Creativity & Innovation Highlights

Reclaim Invention

When universities invent, those inventions should benefit everyone. Unfortunately, they sometimes end up in the hands of patent trolls, companies that serve no purpose but to amass patents and demand money from other innovators and inventors.
We’re asking universities around the country to protect their inventions from patent trolls...

Copyright Law Versus Internet Culture

Throughout human history, culture has been made by people telling one another stories, building on what has come before, and making it their own. Every generation, every storyteller puts their own spin on old tales to reflect their own values and changing times.
This creative remixing happens today and...

Creativity & Innovation Updates

International issues banner, a colorful graphic of a globe

EFF, International Allies Warn That Proposed UN Cybercrime Treaty, Rather Than Making Us More Secure, Could Legitimize Intrusive Surveillance and Drag Down Global Privacy and Free Expression Standards

EFF and international allies Access Now, Article 19, Epicenter, and Global Partners Digital are in Vienna this week and next for the fifth round of negotiations on the proposed UN Cybercrime Treaty, along with the over 100 representatives of Member States hashing out a new draft text.While we have not...

multi-colored hands with circuit patterns reach to the sky

فك شفرة معاهدة الأمم المتحدة لمكافحة الجرائم الإلكترونية

في العام 2017 لكنها بدأت تتشكل في عام 2022 - وهناك الكثير من الشد والجذب. لدى مشروع المعاهدة القدرة على إعادة صياغة القوانين الجنائية في جميع أنحاء العالم، وربما إضافة أكثر من 30 جريمة جنائية وسلطات شرطية موسعة جديدة للتحقيقات الجنائية المحلية والدولية على حد سواء.بالنظر إلى أن قوانين...

A robot painting a self-portrait

我们如何看待版权与AI艺术

可以理解,艺术家们忧心像 Stable Diffusion 这样的自动图像生成器可能会削弱他们艺术作品的市场。 毕竟,我们的社会并不对自动失业提供保障,而作为一名视觉艺术家本已是一个不稳定的职业。 在这种情况下,人们很自然地想到了版权法,因为版权法本应有助于确保艺术家能从他们的作品中获得创作的报酬。 不幸的是,在最近一场由一群艺术家发起的针对 Stable Diffusion 的集体诉讼中,法庭推进了一种对人类创作者来说是极其危险的版权理论。 其他理论——包括在那起诉讼和 Getty Images 的另一起诉讼中的理论——一般建议以干涉研究、搜索引擎以及使新旧技术互动能力的方式改变和扩大版权限制。 本文的法律分析是我们另一篇描述 AI 图像生成技术以及我们如何看待其潜在风险和收益的帖子的姊妹篇。 我们建议您先阅读那篇文章了解上下文,然后再回到这篇文章来了解我们对美国法下版权问题的看法。 总的来说,版权法应在给予艺术家充分的创作激励(通过赋予他们控制其艺术作品的某些使用方式)与赋予公众基于已有作品进行创新或将已有作品使用于新的、有趣的方式的权利之间取得平衡。 这里的问题是,是否图像版权所有人应当有权阻止他人使用其版权图像进行AI生成模拟器训练。 要想回答这个问题,首先我们需要了解一些美国版权法的基本原则。 首先,版权法不禁止对作品中所体现的事实进行观察或复制(这称为“思想/表达区别”)。 相反,版权禁止以可以替代原作的方式对原作的创造性表达进行复制,以及过度使用原作的创造性表达进行“衍生作品”制作。 其次,即使有人复制或创作衍生作品,如果是“合理使用”,则该使用不构成侵权。 使用是否公平取决于多种因素,包括使用目的、原创作品的性质、使用量以及对原创作品市场的潜在危害。 版权与训练集 步骤1: 从网络抓取图像 与复制以创建搜索引擎或其他分析用途一样,下载图像以对其进行分析和索引以创建新的非侵权图像很可能属于合理使用。 当一项行为可能涉及版权但又是实现非侵权使用的必要步骤时,它通常本身就属于合理使用。 毕竟,以非侵权方式使用作品的权利只有在非版权人也被允许执行这些创作的必要步骤时才有意义。 因此,作为中间用途和分析用途,抓取不太可能违反版权法。 步骤2: 存储图像相关信息 在此步骤中,系统分析图像并存储有关像素排列如何与文本注释中的单词相关联的信息。 Stable Diffusion模型对超过 50 亿张图像进行了 4 GB 的观察。 这意味着该模型所含有的对于每个被分析图像的信息少于一个字节(一个字节只有八位——一个零或一个一)。 针对 Stable Diffusion 的诉状将此过程描述为“压缩”(并存储)训练图像,但这是错误的。 除了少数例外,基本无法根据存储的有关图像的事实信息重新创建模型中使用的图像。 即使是最小的图像文件也包含数千字节;...

Pages

Back to top

JavaScript license information