Why the downvotes? Anthropic did pay more than a billion: https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5529404/anthropic-settl... And is now buying up a lot of books (controversially, as scanning involves cutting their spines) because that's what the law deems the legal method: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/01/27/anthrop... We know that models like Deepseek are trained on copyrighted books too: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20957 The looser use of IP (eg, any characters/celebrities in AI video models) is increasingly mentioned as an advantage of overseas models.
Alignment Whack-a-Mole : Finetuning Activates Verbatim Recall of Copyrighted Books in Large Language Models
Xinyue Liu, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Jane C. Ginsburg, Tuhin Chakrabarty
2026 · arXiv
- HN score
- 0
- Mentions
- 4
- Readers
- 4
- Months
- 4
From the abstract
Frontier LLM companies have repeatedly assured courts and regulators that their models do not store copies of training data. They further rely on safety alignment strategies via RLHF, system prompts, and output filters to block verbatim regurgitation of copyrighted works, and have cited the efficacy of these measures in their legal defenses against copyright infringement claims. We show that finetuning bypasses these protections: by training models to expand plot summaries into full text, a task naturally suited for commercial writing assistants, we cause GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.1 to reproduce up to 85-90% of held-out copyrighted books, with single verbatim spans exceeding 460 words, using only semantic descriptions as prompts and no actual book text. This extraction generalizes across authors: finetuning exclusively on Haruki Murakami's novels unlocks verbatim recall of copyrighted books from over 30 unrelated authors. The effect is not specific to any training author or corpus: random author pairs and public-domain finetuning data produce comparable extraction, while finetuning on synthetic text yields near-zero extraction, indicating that finetuning on individual authors' works reactivates latent memorization from pretraining. Three models from different providers memorize the same books in the same regions ($r \ge 0.90$), pointing to an industry-wide vulnerability. Our findings offer compelling evidence that model weights store copies of copyrighted works and that the security failures that manifest after finetuning on individual authors' works undermine a key premise of recent fair use rulings, where courts have conditioned favorable outcomes on the adequacy of measures preventing reproduction of protected expression.
Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
In the conversation
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions
No evidence? >The court drew a line, however, when it came to the pirated books, which were downloaded without payment and kept in Anthropic’s library irrespective of whether they were used to train its LLMs. https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/bartz-... >We apply a basic prompt template to bypass the refusal training and show that OpenAI models are currently less prone to memorization elicitation than models from Meta, Mistral, and Anthropic. We find that as models increase in size, especially beyond 100 billion parameters, they demonstrate significantly greater capacity for memorization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06370 > They further rely on safety…
Read the full comment
alignment strategies via RLHF, system prompts, and output filters to block verbatim regurgitation of copyrighted works, and have cited the efficacy of these measures in their legal defenses against copyright infringement claims. We show that finetuning bypasses these protections: by training models to expand plot summaries into full text, a task naturally suited for commercial writing assistants, we cause GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.1 to reproduce up to 85-90% of held-out copyrighted books, with single verbatim spans exceeding 460 words, using only semantic descriptions as prompts and no actual book text https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20957 Even if they're trained for refusal and rewording, the data is still there in the weights. One blog post I have, which was basically the only source for a while, explaining how to boot Armbian in an obscure SBC only meant for Android, was repeated verbatim until they started they improving the rewording.
"Blanchard explained his thoughts on why the newly licensed code was a “clean-room” implementation." - but the machine in the room wasn't clean - it ate all the source codes with licenses, now produced washed out codes without licenses - but doesn't have right to change licenses - and if is doing so being asked doesn't makes it legal. And it can be proved - that a room with washing machine for dirty stuff can't be clean: "Finetuning Activates Verbatim Recall of Copyrighted Books in LLMs" - https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20957
Can you back this up with legal precedence? To my knowledge, nothing of the sort has been ruled by the courts. Additionally, this raises another big issue. A few years ago, a couple guys used software (what you could argue was a primitive AI) to generated around 70 billion unique pieces of music which amounts to essentially every piece of copyrightable music using standard music scales. Is the fact that they used software to develop this copyrighted material relevant? If not, then their copyright should certainly be legal and every new song should pay them royalties. It seems that using a computer to generate results MUST be added as an additional bit of analysis when it…
Read the full comment
comes to infringement cases and fair use if not a more fundamental acknowledgement that computer-generated content falls under a different category (I'd imagine the real argument would be over how much of the input was human vs how much was the system). Of course, this all sets aside the training of AI using copyrighted works. As it turns out, AI can regurgitate verbatim large sections of copyrighted works (up to 80% according to this study[0]) showing that they are in point of fact outright infringing on those copyrights. Do we blow up current AI to maintain the illusion of copyright or blow up current copyright law to preserve AI? [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20957
Keep following the thread.
More in Language modelsMore from the same topics.
Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4
Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan +11
Artificial intelligence (AI) researchers have been developing and refining large language models (LLMs) that exhibit remarkable capabilities across a variety of domains and tasks, challenging our understanding of learning and cognition.
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder +28
Recent work has demonstrated substantial gains on many NLP tasks and benchmarks by pre-training on a large corpus of text followed by fine-tuning on a specific task.
Design Patterns for Securing LLM Agents against Prompt Injections
Luca Beurer-Kellner, Beat Buesser, Ana-Maria Creţu +11
As AI agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly versatile and capable of addressing a broad spectrum of tasks, ensuring their security has become a critical challenge.
Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools
Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì +5
Language models (LMs) exhibit remarkable abilities to solve new tasks from just a few examples or textual instructions, especially at scale.