Tracing Copyright Infringement Across the AI Supply Chain Through Knowledge Distillation
Original Paper: Unknown Title
Authors:
Original Paper: [To be updated with the specific paper title] Authors: [To be updated with the author list]
Executive Summary
New research provides a forensic method to prove that smaller, commercial AI models inherit copyright infringement from their larger “teacher” models, even if they never trained on the original data. This methodology counters the prevalent “clean room” defense by establishing an evidentiary link through a process called knowledge distillation, creating a powerful tool to establish liability and demonstrate market harm across the AI supply chain.
What the Research Shows
For plaintiffs in AI copyright cases, a significant challenge has been the “clean room” defense. A defendant may claim their smaller, specialized AI model is non-infringing because it was trained only on the outputs of a massive foundation model, not on the plaintiff’s original copyrighted work. They argue that any connection to the original data is severed, absolving them of liability. This research directly refutes that argument.
The paper focuses on “knowledge distillation” (KD), a common AI training technique where a large, powerful “teacher” model trains a smaller “student” model. The student learns not from the original raw data, but from the refined patterns, predictions, and outputs generated by the teacher. The core finding is that this process is not a sterile transfer of abstract knowledge; it is a direct inheritance of capability and structure.
The authors have developed a method to detect this inheritance by identifying unique “expert signatures.” These are distinct structural habits, biases, and decision-making patterns that a teacher model develops during its initial, often infringing, training. The research demonstrates that these signatures are passed down to the student model during distillation, acting as a forensic fingerprint. By analyzing a student model for these signatures, an expert can trace its lineage back to a specific, infringing teacher model, much like a ballistics expert matches a bullet to a gun.
Why This Matters for Your Case
This research fundamentally alters the landscape of AI copyright liability. It provides a technical basis for a theory of “inherited infringement,” piercing the corporate veil that separates the developers of massive foundation models from the downstream companies that commercialize them. The argument that a student model is “clean” because it never directly “saw” the copyrighted data is now demonstrably false. The infringement is not in the seeing, but in the learning—and that infringing knowledge has been passed down.
This directly strengthens arguments under the fourth fair use factor: the effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work. A defendant can no longer claim their commercial product is harmlessly disconnected from the original infringement. This research proves the defendant’s model’s core capabilities—the very features that allow it to compete with and supplant the plaintiff’s work in the market—are the direct product of the initial infringement. The harm is not attenuated; it is propagated and monetized through the AI supply chain, and this methodology provides the evidence to prove it.
Litigation Strategy
This paper equips plaintiff’s counsel with a new and potent line of attack. First, in discovery, demand all documentation related to the defendant’s model training, specifically targeting the use of knowledge distillation. Inquire about the identity of any “teacher” or “parent” models used, the nature of the data transferred, and the parameters of the distillation process. Any refusal or obfuscation can give rise to adverse inferences.
Second, engage technical experts to apply this paper’s methodology. An expert can analyze the defendant’s model to search for the “expert signatures” of well-known foundation models known to have been trained on scraped, copyrighted data. A positive match becomes dispositive evidence, creating a direct causal link between the upstream infringement and the downstream commercial product. This transforms a complex, abstract argument about training data into a concrete, evidence-based claim of provenance and taint.
Key Takeaway
The defense that a commercial AI model is insulated from liability because it was trained via knowledge distillation is no longer tenable. This research provides both the legal theory and the forensic tools to trace infringement from a “teacher” to a “student” model. For plaintiff’s lawyers, this is a critical development, enabling you to hold downstream commercial actors accountable and prove that the value they extracted was derived directly from the unauthorized use of your client’s work.