🚩 Report: Copyright infringement
This is a private model that wasn't leaked and isn't licensed for redistribution, it's also using our wordmark without permission
The model has been made available on a public repository. https://huggingface.co/hf-100/Jamba-1.5-mini-Spellbound-StoryWriter-0.1-6583896-ckpt81-merged
The model has also been uploaded under Jamba Open Model License https://www.ai21.com/jamba-open-model-license/, and as such this repo maintains compliance within said license.
The name is not protected by copyright as that's part of trademarking law instead, and as such is not within scope of a copyright report, if you can inform me of which "wordmarks" you refer to and produce documentation proving you hold a trademark over the portion of the name I will take appropriate action.
I turned it private, but if you're going to fight for my old model scraps...
Just a reminder, you can always pay me for consultation on how to actually use the models, or maybe train your own instead of hoping you can snipe random ones from my hf repo :)
Being passive aggressive doesn't suit someone who is attempting to run a business.
Neither is filing fraudulent copyright reports fuelled by ignorance and incompetence.
If there's such incompetence being demonstrated then you certainly shouldn't need my work
The only reason I followed up is I see you are on Featherless, a commercial service: if Featherless needs my models so badly they can always reach out
Don't flatter yourself, this repo is your model quantized to FP8 for personal use for another user. You're right, I'm a unaffiliated member of their Discord, like more than a thousand other users, and I don't appreciate insinuations by the likes of you. Not that it would matter whether the venture is commercial or not considering the license you uploaded your model under.
Again, why even host the work of "the likes of me" then? I don't get the tone while you're gnawing my table scraps.
You've set the tone with your abuse of copyright reporting system making fraudulent claims and insinuations, which you continued to make. You blowing your own trumpet doesn't impress anyone either.
I'm sorry, but there are no fraudulent claims here.
Spellbound is the wordmark I incorporated under at the start of the year:
And the model does not comply with the Jamba licence requirements for redistribution, since it wasn't intended to be redistributed.
Jamba's Open License required a Notice file with a specific string currently not in the Readme, a description of the modifications made, and any additional attributions that I'd like.
At the very least I'd recommend adding a note that this model's licensing situation is questionable... my real concern is commercial entities trying to use it.
It's not questionable.
Your claim of "intention" is immaterial as the model has been provided with the license allowing such use at the time, and even if it wasn't, you cannot impose such restrictions. As the Jamba license is non-sublicensable, and due to Section 2.b.i of the Agreement, you cannot impose any terms and conditions which conflict or are inconsistent with provisions of the original Agreement. Any Jamba Materials and derivative materials are also still owned by Jamba, subject to Section 2.e.
Incorporation of your company gives you no right to trademarking the model name "Spellbound". You have incorporated your company, which gives you no trademarking rights in any way. Same as it does not give you the right to trademarking the word "AI". In fact, trademark as such already exists, and is currently active under ACME LLC. Even IF you had one, which you file for as a completely separate process, as Section 2.b.i requires you to pass these same rights to anyone who receives your derivative, enforcing the potential trademark would conflict with the provision of that Section. Additionally, if you got incorporated in January 2025, what does it have to do with material that already existed on this repo since September 2024?
Lastly, subject to Paragraph 2.b.ii, adding of any additional notes of attribution in addition to the required Jamba attribution is non-mandatory, as indicated by wording "You may". So, no, not any "that you'd like".
This is pretty simple. The Jamba license requires the Notice:
i. If You distribute or otherwise make available to a third party any Jamba Materials, any Derivative, and/or any product or service that incorporates or uses any portion of either of them, You must: (A) impose on such third party the provisions (and provide it with a copy) of this Agreement (and any additional or different terms and conditions You impose on that third party must not conflict or be inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, and, in the event of a conflict or inconsistency, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail over any such additional or different terms and conditions); and (B) retain the following attribution notice within a “Notice” text file distributed as a part of such copies: “This Jamba Model is licensed under the Jamba Open Model License Agreement, Copyright © AI21 Labs Ltd. All Rights Reserved”;
The model was uploaded without the notice, and the notice is not optional. So it's not licensed.
You're apparently quite attached to my work despite having so many issues with its creator, but again a simple note to downstream users would be a good idea.
You haven't done that either, so I assume your model is not licensed either according to your logic? I can see you're also changing goalposts as you realise your childish attempts at appearing competent are failing.
I have just added mine, and since the termination of the license is not automatic (the only automatic termination of license would be if I sued AI21 for IP right infringement) and Jamba has not given me termination notice, I have taken my opportunity to cure the breach of license before such termination has been issued or considered. I will be notifying AI21 of the accidental breach and subsequent correction and will be awaiting their response.
Yours is still in that breach by the way, in case you didn't notice.
I'm not attached to anything, I'm simply rebuking your impotent and fraudulent efforts to abuse the copyright report system. Which you file while trying to appear to know what you're talking about and believing you can con me. It has coincidentally been very amusing seeing you trip over yourself.
The only note to downstream users you deserve is that you have a history of being glib and malicious, which this thread will perfectly illustrate in perpetuity.
You haven't done that either, so I assume your model is not licensed either according to your logic? I can see you're also changing goalposts as you realise your childish attempts at appearing competent are failing.
No it's not licensed for redistribution, never was.
The only note to downstream users you deserve is that you have a history of being glib and malicious, which this thread will perfectly illustrate in perpetuity.
Again, if I'm glib and malicious, please don't redistribute my work.
Of course it was, if you had a single clue what you're talking about you'd know that.
And you haven't given me any reason to listen to you or do what you ask, so the repo stays as is. You're going to now ask nicely after filing a bogus copyright infringement report and backing it with your imagination. Laughable.