I'm not sure how Copilot works, but I don't believe Dall-E repeats images. From my understanding it creates visual concepts of words and uses them to create entirely new images. If Copilot works in the same way for code, I honestly don't see that there should be any copyright issues here.
This issue has been claimed many times and I've heard that DALL·E 1 & 2, Stable Diffusion & Midjourney all can create images that are exact copies of the training material.
This doesn't make sense considering the compression ratio of training images to model is about 1:25,000.
Further investigations I have made show that all these cases can be explained via the following:
1) The prompt included an image, so some form of image2image was used. Of course if you use an image as a base, and tell the model to stick closely to that image, the output will largely resemble that image.
2) The example was completely made up.
So far I have seen no evidence, given a text prompt, the output of an image containing some portion of any image from the training set.
Your comment includes exact copies of words and phrases which I have also used prior to you, so you are violating my copyright even if you didn't intend that.
Well, I don't really think you are violating my copyright. But by focusing on parts, you go down a rabbit hole of equating an element with the whole thing. This would render all collage art illegal. Lawyers and art pundits love ruminating on the uncertain legality of collage art (because it's not a binary question, so they can churn out endless articles that boil down to 'it depends'), but this glosses over 2 important realities:
1. Nobody gets sued over collage art largely because any case is doomed to end up with lawyers measuring the size of collage elements with rulers and then arguing about what small percentage is too much, and uncertain exercise few law firms wish to gamble their reputation on, and
2. nobody gets sued because collage art isn't worth very much to begin with; collages aren't valued very highly because they aren't as hard to make as painting or other art forms. 'Appropriation artists' like Richard Prince get rich and famous partly because their art is less about the image than the cultivation of notoriety for artistic effect; they are artists of scandal rather than pictures.
In general, bits of things are just not that important, and I'd argue that the same applies to code. If part of your code matches a prompt (excluding highly specific prompts like '# insert Woodson's unique XYZ algorithm here') and is then deployed in another program without alteration, isn't that most likely to be because it performs some generic function?
