A response to the Sarah Silverman suing OpenAI post from yesterday: [AI doesn't read or write like humans, and we shouldn't act like it does.]
A response to the Sarah Silverman suing OpenAI post from yesterday: [AI doesn't read or write like humans, and we shouldn't act like it does.]
We shouldn’t be affording companies the ability to profit off other people’s creations without their consent, and despite the intentions, that's basically how current copyright law works.
A long form response to the concerns and comments and general principles many people had in the post about authors suing companies creating LLMs.
You're viewing a single thread.
If I read her book, someone asked me to summarize it and I did - would she sue me for copyright infringement too? Do I need her permission to read her book?
It seems to me like a cheap attempt to advertise her book.
US Courts have already ruled in the past that human authorship is required for copyright. It'd be a logical conclusion as such that human authorship would also be required to justify a fair use defence. You providing a summary without any quotations would likely justify fair use - which is still copyright infringement, but a mere defence of said infringement. A machine or algorithm that cannot perform the act of creative authorship would thus not be exempted by the fair use defence.
US Courts have already ruled in the past that human authorship is required for copyright
Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Here, Silverman is the only one making a copyright claim. ChatGPT is not claiming a copyright on its output.
It'd be a logical conclusion as such that human authorship would also be required to justify a fair use defence.
I disagree. Nothing about "fair use" requires that the work be copyrighted on its own, or even copyrightable. It simply can't be subject to the original copyright.
A summary is a "transformative derivation". Even if that summary cannot be copyrighted on its for some reason, it is not subject to the copyright of the original work.
To read it in the first place, before you summarize it, you need to obtain it legally by either buying it, or checking it out from the library (which has bought it).
That is not actually true.
If I create unauthorized copies of Silverman's book, and hand one to you, I have violated her copyright; you have not. You are free to read that unauthorized copy. You are free to discuss what you have read.
Copyright law prohibits me from creating and distributing her book. It does not prohibit you from receiving an unauthorized copy. Hell, it doesn't even prohibit you from soliciting an unauthorized copy.
Or you sit in the library and "read" it. Now how do you define where the library is? Many libraries loan out digital copies. You can sit in a book store (they exist!) and read a book without purchasing it too.
It's going to be difficult to use the "they couldn't possibly have had legit access to all these books" argument in court.