So this is another thing I don’t understand. Is the claim that fewer people will buy Silverman’s book because ChatGPT is able to provide a summary? If so, call me skeptical.
Where does it say they scraped huge swathes of the internet and didn't look at the results?
Is this based on inside information, or just the law of averages? Doesn't the fact that they openly admitted to having been trained on pirated books affect your priors?
See post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36659041 for a summary.
This vague sentence conjures images of a company building products from stolen parts, but this situation seems different. IANAL, but if I looked at a stolen painting that nobody had ever seen, and sold handwritten descriptions of the painting to whoever wanted to buy one, I'm pretty sure what I've sold is not illegal.
So, if the plaintiff can prove the content was pirated, then the use of that content downstream is tainted.
What does that mean exactly? That's why I used the "looking at a stolen painting" example.
Sure, pirating materials is illegal. But I don't think that's the big implication that people are getting at here. Is it legal to sell original works derived from perceiving stolen materials? Seems to me that it is.
Surely you see the issue here? Receiving stolen property?
>In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights.
Numerous questions of law or fact common to each Class arise from Defendants’ conduct:
whether ChatGPT itself is an infringing derivative work based on Plaintiffs’ copyrighted books;
whether the text outputs of ChatGPT are infringing derivative works based on Plaintiffs’ copyrighted books;
1. https://llmlitigation.com/pdf/03223/tremblay-openai-complain...
Has that been tested in court?
This is quite an interesting case.
Obtaining the book in the first place[0] appears to be quite a clear case of copyright infrigement.
The question of whether a work derived from the book is infringment is pretty complex, and there's a wide range of tests that get applied to determine that.
But is it necessarily true that if you obtained the original work via copyright infringement and then created an otherwise non-infringing derived work, your derived work is nevertheless infringing due to the provenance of your copy of the original work?