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.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked widespread concerns about their safety. Recent work demonstrates that safety alignment of LLMs can be easily removed by fine-tuning with a few adversarially chosen instruction-following examples, i.e., fine-tuning attacks. We take a further step to understand fine-tuning attacks in multilingual LLMs. We first discover cross-lingual generalization of fine-tuning attacks: using a few adversarially chosen instruction-following examples in one language, multilingual LLMs can also be easily compromised (e.g., multilingual LLMs fail to refuse harmful prompts in other languages). Motivated by this finding, we hypothesize that safety-related information is language-agnostic and propose a new method termed Safety Information Localization (SIL) to identify the safety-related information in the model parameter space. Through SIL, we validate this hypothesis and find that only changing 20% of weight parameters in fine-tuning attacks can break safety alignment across all languages. Furthermore, we provide evidence to the alternative pathways hypothesis for why freezing safety-related parameters does not prevent fine-tuning attacks, and we demonstrate that our attack vector can still jailbreak LLMs adapted to new languages.