this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
846 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

60123 readers
3615 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
846
Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works (www.cnn.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
367 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bouncing@partizle.com 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If I gave a worker a pirated link to several books and scientific papers in the field, and asked them to synthesize an overview/summary of what they read and publish it, I’d get my ass sued. I have to buy the books and the scientific papers.

Well, if OpenAI knowingly used pirated work, that's one thing. It seems pretty unlikely and certainly hasn't been proven anywhere.

Of course, they could have done so unknowingly. For example, if John C Pirate published the transcripts of every movie since 1980 on his website, and OpenAI merely crawled his website (in the same way Google does), it's hard to make the case that they're really at fault any more than Google would be.

[–] cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

well no, because the summary is its own copyrighted work

[–] bouncing@partizle.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The published summary is open to fair use by web crawlers. That was settled in Perfect 10 v Amazon.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Right, but not one the author of the book could go after. The article publisher would have the closest rights to a claim. But if I read the crib notes and a few reviews of a movie... Then go to summarize the movie myself... That's derivative content and is protected under copyright.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Haven't people asked it to reproduce specific chapters or pages of specific books and it's gotten it right?

[–] bouncing@partizle.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I haven't been able to reproduce that, and at least so far, I haven't seen any very compelling screenshots of it that actually match. Usually it just generates text, but that text doesn't actually match.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Gotcha. This seems like a good way to test for it then, I think.