Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

On Provable Copyright Protection for Generative Models

Vyas, Nikhil, Kakade, Sham, Barak, Boaz·2023·arXiv

Abstract

There is a growing concern that learned conditional generative models may output samples that are substantially similar to some copyrighted data $C$ that was in their training set. We give a formal definition of $\textit{near access-freeness (NAF)}$ and prove bounds on the probability that a model satisfying this definition outputs a sample similar to $C$, even if $C$ is included in its training set. Roughly speaking, a generative model $p$ is $\textit{$k$-NAF}$ if for every potentially copyrighted data $C$, the output of $p$ diverges by at most $k$-bits from the output of a model $q$ that $\textit{did not access $C$ at all}$. We also give generative model learning algorithms, which efficiently modify the original generative model learning algorithm in a black box manner, that output generative models with strong bounds on the probability of sampling protected content. Furthermore, we provide promising experiments for both language (transformers) and image (diffusion) generative models, showing minimal degradation in output quality while ensuring strong protections against sampling protected content.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2302.10870

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. B. Barz and J. Denzler. Do we train on test data? purging CIFAR of near-duplicates. J. Imaging, 6(6):41, 2020. doi: 10.3390/jimaging6060041. URL https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging6060041. · DOI · Paper page
  2. N. Carlini, F. Tramer, E. Wallace, M. Jagielski, A. Herbert-Voss, K. Lee, A. Roberts, T. Brown, D. Song, U. Erlingsson, et al. Extracting training data from large language models. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), pages 2633-2650, 2021.
  3. N. Carlini, D. Ippolito, M. Jagielski, K. Lee, F. Tramèr, and C. Zhang. Quantifying memorization across neural language models. CoRR, abs/2202.07646, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.07646. · arXiv
  4. N. Carlini, J. Hayes, M. Nasr, M. Jagielski, V. Sehwag, F. Tramèr, B. Balle, D. Ippolito, and E. Wallace. Extracting training data from diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13188, 2023. · arXiv
  5. C. Dwork and V. Feldman. Privacy-preserving prediction. In Conference On Learning Theory, pages 1693- 1702. PMLR, 2018.
  6. C. Dwork, F. McSherry, K. Nissim, and A. D. Smith. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In S. Halevi and T. Rabin, editors, Theory of Cryptography, Third Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2006, New York, NY, USA, March 4-7, 2006, Proceedings, volume 3876 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 265-284. Springer, 2006. doi: 10.1007/11681878\ 14. URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/11681878_14. · DOI · Paper page
  7. C. Dwork, A. Roth, et al. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science, 9(3-4):211-407, 2014.
  8. N. Elkin-Koren, U. Hacohen, R. Livni, and S. Moran. Can copyright be reduced to privacy? CoRR, abs/2305.14822, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.14822. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305. 14822. · DOI
  9. B. Ghazi, N. Golowich, R. Kumar, P. Manurangsi, and C. Zhang. Deep learning with label differential privacy. In A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. W. Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=RYcgfqmAOHh.
  10. J. Gillotte. Copyright infringement in ai-generated artworks. UC Davis Law Review, 53(5), 2020.
  11. J. Hoffmann, S. Borgeaud, A. Mensch, E. Buchatskaya, T. Cai, E. Rutherford, D. de Las Casas, L. A. Hendricks, J. Welbl, A. Clark, T. Hennigan, E. Noland, K. Millican, G. van den Driessche, B. Damoc, A. Guy, S. Osindero, K. Simonyan, E. Elsen, J. W. Rae, O. Vinyals, and L. Sifre. Training compute- optimal large language models. CoRR, abs/2203.15556, 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.15556. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.15556. · DOI · Paper page
  12. D. Ippolito, F. Tramèr, M. Nasr, C. Zhang, M. Jagielski, K. Lee, C. A. Choquette-Choo, and N. Carlini. Pre- venting verbatim memorization in language models gives a false sense of privacy. CoRR, abs/2210.17546, 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.17546. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.17546. · DOI · Paper page
  13. N. Kandpal, E. Wallace, and C. Raffel. Deduplicating training data mitigates privacy risks in language models. In K. Chaudhuri, S. Jegelka, L. Song, C. Szepesvári, G. Niu, and S. Sabato, editors, International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 10697-10707. PMLR, 2022. URL https:// proceedings.mlr.press/v162/kandpal22a.html.
  14. D. P. Kingma, T. Salimans, B. Poole, and J. Ho. On density estimation with diffusion models. In A. Beygelz- imer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. W. Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=2LdBqxc1Yv.
  15. J. Lee, T. Le, J. Chen, and D. Lee. Do language models plagiarize? CoRR, abs/2203.07618, 2022a. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.07618. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.07618. · DOI · Paper page
  16. K. Lee, D. Ippolito, A. Nystrom, C. Zhang, D. Eck, C. Callison-Burch, and N. Carlini. Deduplicating training data makes language models better. In S. Muresan, P. Nakov, and A. Villavicencio, editors, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 8424-8445. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022b. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.577. URL https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.577. · DOI · Paper page
  17. X. Li, F. Tramer, P. Liang, and T. Hashimoto. Large language models can be strong differentially private learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  18. In S. Muresan, P. Nakov, and A. Villavicencio, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022, pages 2182-2193. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.171. URL https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022. findings-acl.171. · DOI
  19. C. Raffel, N. Shazeer, A. Roberts, K. Lee, S. Narang, M. Matena, Y. Zhou, W. Li, and P. J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv e-prints, 2019.
  20. P. Samuelson. Why copyright law excludes systems and processes from the scope of its protection. Texas Law Review, 85(1), 2007.
  21. P. Samuelson. Text and data mining of in-copyright works: is it legal? Communications of the ACM, 64 (11):20-22, 2021.
  22. S. Scheffler, E. Tromer, and M. Varia. Formalizing human ingenuity: A quantitative framework for copyright law's substantial similarity. In Proceedings of the 2022 Symposium on Computer Science and Law, pages 37-49, 2022.
  23. B. L. Sobel. Artificial intelligence's fair use crisis. The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 41(1):45-97, 2018.
  24. K. Tirumala, A. H. Markosyan, L. Zettlemoyer, and A. Aghajanyan. Memorization without overfitting: Analyzing the training dynamics of large language models. CoRR, abs/2205.10770, 2022. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2205.10770. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.10770. · DOI
  25. F. Tramer and D. Boneh. Differentially private learning needs better features (or much more data). In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= YTWGvpFOQD-.
  26. L. van der Maaten and A. Hannun. The trade-offs of private prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.05089, 2020. · arXiv

Cited by

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Vyas, N., Kakade, S., & Barak, B.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
References
0
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On Provable Copyright Protection for Generative Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2302.10870
The paper
Vyas, N., Kakade, S., & Barak, B. (2023). On Provable Copyright Protection for Generative Models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2302.10870