It also somewhat depends on open legal questions like whether models are copyrightable and, if so, whether model outputs are derivative works of the model. Suppose that models are not copyrightable, due to their not being the product of human creativity (this is debatable). Then the creator can still require people to agree to contractual terms before downloading the model from them, presumably including the usage limitations as well as an agreement not to redistribute the model to anyone else who does not also agree. Agreement can happen explicitly by pressing a button, or potentially implicitly just by downloading the model from them, if the terms are clearly disclosed beforehand. But if someone decides on their own (not induced by you in any way) to violate the contract by uploading it somewhere else, and you passively download it from there, then you may be in the clear.
> Then the creator can still require people to agree to contractual terms before downloading the model from them, presumably including the usage limitations as well as an agreement not to redistribute the model to anyone else who does not also agree.
I don't think it's possible to invent copyright-like rights.
Why not? Two willing parties can agree to bind themselves to all kinds of obligations in a contract as long as they're not explicitly illegal.
Copyleft is an example of someone successfully inventing a copyright-like right by bootstrapping off existing copyright with a specially engineered contract.
1) You and I invent our own private "copyright" for data (which is not copyrightable)
2) Everything is fine until my wife walks up to my computer and makes a copy of the data. She's not bound by our private "copyright." She doesn't even know it exists, and shares the data with her bestie.
And... our private pseudo-copyright is dead.
Also: Licenses are not the same as contracts. There are times when something can be both, one, or the other. But there are a lot of limits on how far they reach. The output of a program is rarely copyrightable by the author (as opposed to the user).
> my wife walks up to my computer and makes a copy of the data
As you agreed to in our contract, you now need to compensate me for the damage caused by your failure to prevent unauthorized third-party access. Of course you're free to attempt to recover the sum you have to pay me from your wife.
> The output of a program is rarely copyrightable by the author (as opposed to the user).
The author of the program can make it a condition of letting the user use the program that the user has to assign all copyright to the author of the program, kind of like "By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed." https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/
Okay. Now put yourself in the position of Microsoft, using this scheme for Windows. We'll pretend real copyright doesn't exist, and we've got your hair-brained scheme. This is how it plays out:
1) You have a $1T product.
2) My wife leaks it, or a burglar does. I am a typical consumer, with say, a $20k net worth.
You have two choices:
1) Sue me, recover $20k, and be down $1T (minus $20k, plus litigation fees), and get the press of ruining the life of some innocent random person
2) Not sue me. Be down $1T (including the $20k) .
And yes, the author of a program can put whatever conditions they want into the license: "By using this program, you agree to transfer $1M into my bank account in bit coin, to give me your first-born baby, to swear fealty to me, and to give me your wife it servitude." A court can then read those conditions, have a good laugh, and not enforce them. There are very clear limits on what a court will enforce in licenses (and contracts), and owning the output of a program, and barring exceptional circumstance, courts will not enforce them:
This is why programmers should learn basic law, not treat is as computer code, and consult lawyers when issues come up. Read by a lawyer, a license or contract with an unenforceable clause is as good as having no such clause.
> There are very clear limits on what a court will enforce in licenses (and contracts), and owning the output of a program, and barring exceptional circumstance, courts will not enforce them:
It seems to me that the cases in the article you linked involved the author of the program arguing that their copyright automatically extended to the output without any extra contractual provisions concerning copyright assignment, so I don't think they can be used as precedent regarding the enforceability of such clauses.
> The author of the program can make it a condition of letting the user use the program that the user has to assign all copyright to the author of the program
I think it is quite likely a court would find that unconscionable.
