Re:NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT in...
by shkkmo on Friday December 29, 2023 @12:42PM
(#38807822)
You seem to be shifting the topic of this thread. The GP comment is about paraphrasing news articles while I don't see anything in the NYT lawsuit about paraphrasing. Rather, the NYT is concerned with exact reproduction or near exact reproduction. I too am very curious about the outcome of this case and wouldn't care bet either way on the outcome. I do have an opinion on what precedent would be better for our society but that doesn't mean I think that outcome is more likely.
However, none of that matters in this particular thread. There are well established precedents about paraphrasing news articles and they do not support the claim you made
No, I'm not. On the contrary, I'm really looking forward to this case because I believe it will be a great test of a bunch of concepts that are totally novel in the world of copyright law as it applies to generative AI. The only things I am presenting with confidence are:
1. That anyone who declares that something is unambiguously fair use (or, contrarily, unambiguously infringing) is likely wrong. There is simply too much latitude by judges, and there have certainly been cases where a ruling went one way, only to be overturned on appeal.
2. While I certainly have an opinion on how I think this case will be decided, I'm not presenting that with unwarranted confidence. Instead, I linked that great article on the 4 factors of fair use determination because it's clear to me lots of people are saying "fair use!" on one side or the other with no understanding of the factors judges must actually consider when making a determination.