Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

Re:Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright in... by makeitdouble on Sunday July 09, 2023 @06:53PM (#36659884)

If AI companies get to successfully argue the two points below, what source was used becomes irrelevant.

- copyright violation happened before the intervention of the bot

- what LLMs spit out is different enough from any of the source that it is not infringing on existing copyright

If both stand, I'd compare it to you going to an auction site and studying all the published items as an observer, coming up with your research result, to then be sued because some of the items were stolen. Going after the theaves make sense, does going after the entity that just looked at the stolen goods make sense ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright in... by pessimizer on Sunday July 09, 2023 @07:24PM (#36660142)

> - copyright violation happened before the intervention of the bot

What is this supposed to mean? The bot didn't "intervene," it was executed by its operators, and it was trained on illicit material obtained by its operators. The LLM isn't on trial. It's not a person.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright in... by makeitdouble on Sunday July 09, 2023 @07:42PM (#36660246)

I see it as the same argument as whether Google is under the hook for its crawler going through the copyright infringing sites and having an index of the content, even if it isn't surfaced (redistributed) in the user search results.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright in... by bobbylarrybobby on Sunday July 09, 2023 @09:56PM (#36661128)

I'd argue that if an automated process can ingest A and spit out B, then B is inherently a derivative work of A. (Never mind that humans are also automata.)

[ Parent | on HN ]