CopyShield: A Cross-Level Benchmark of Copyright Defenses in LLMs
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models can reproduce memorized text verbatim, yet copyright defenses are usually evaluated under incompatible protocols. We introduce CopyShield, a controlled benchmark comparing three representative defenses at distinct intervention levels: contrastive decoding (output), Direct Preference Optimization (behavioral), and activation intervention (representation). We evaluate CopyShield on two model families, LLaMA-3.1-8B and Mistral-7B-v0.3, using controlled memorization over five public-domain books and a shared protocol measuring literal leakage, calibrated non-literal leakage, utility, and degeneracy. Across these methods, intervention level is associated with distinct compliance-utility trade-offs. On LLaMA-3.1-8B, contrastive decoding remains near-degeneracy-free (0-2%) but reaches a literal-suppression floor at NV-Recall 0.192-0.203. DPO nearly eliminates literal leakage (0.263 to 0.002) but induces paraphrase-loop degeneracy in 58% of QA outputs, with no utility gain over the SFT baseline. Activation intervention attains the lowest non-literal flagging rate (1/200) by blocking 84% of non-literal queries before generation. Human evaluation confirms that DPO has low coherence, whereas activation lowers perceived copyright risk through broad refusal. On Mistral-7B-v0.3, the output- and representation-level patterns persist, while DPO degeneracy falls to 10-14%, showing that its severity is model-dependent. Together, CopyShield provides cross-level reference baselines and identifies targeted non-literal suppression as an open challenge. The code is available at https://github.com/spotai-mbzuai/CopyShield.git.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 17 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.
Builds on
17 of 21 references.
References · 17
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
- 2022Contrastive Decoding: Open-ended Text Generation as Optimizationcited by 598
- 2022Knowledge Unlearning for Mitigating Privacy Risks in Language Modelscited by 424
- 2023Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Modelscited by 415
- 2023Who's Harry Potter? Approximate Unlearning in LLMscited by 366
- 2023Speak, Memory: An Archaeology of Books Known to ChatGPT/GPT-4cited by 123
- 2023Foundation Models and Fair Usecited by 112
- 2022Preventing Verbatim Memorization in Language Models Gives a False Sense of Privacycited by 97
- 2024Evaluating Copyright Takedown Methods for Language Modelscited by 42
5 more
- 2024CopyBench: Measuring Literal and Non-Literal Reproduction of Copyright-Protected Text in Language Model Generationcited by 35
- 2026Extracting books from production language modelscited by 16
- 2024Copyright-Protected Language Generation via Adaptive Model Fusioncited by 6
- 2025ParaPO: Aligning Language Models to Reduce Verbatim Reproduction of Pre-training Datacited by 6
- 2025SCOPE: Intrinsic Semantic Space Control for Mitigating Copyright Infringement in LLMscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Alignment Whack-a-Mole : Finetuning Activates Verbatim Recall of Copyrighted Books in Large Language Models
- 2024Undesirable Memorization in Large Language Models: A Survey
- 2025RECAP: Reproducing Copyrighted Data from LLMs Training with an Agentic Pipeline
- 2025Nine Ways to Break Copyright Law and Why Our LLM Won't: A Fair Use Aligned Generation Framework
- 2026To Copy or Not to Copy: Copying Is Easier to Induce Than Recall
- 2026Measuring Evaluation-Context Divergence in Open-Weight LLMs: A Paired-Prompt Protocol with Pilot Evidence of Alignment-Pipeline-Specific Heterogeneity
- 2026How Robust Is Multimodal Claim Verification to LLM Rewriting?
- 2026Probing Stylistic Appropriation using Large Language Models: An Evaluation Framework for Copyright Infringement under EU Law