I'm confused. There's an entire paragraph in the article where the author compares the two summaries and finds that they differ only in their structuring. I can't find any part of the article saying that the LLM summary was written "in the style of George R.R. Martin", as far as I understand both summaries are conceptually very similar. That's the main problem. If the scope of substantial similarity to a novel is pushed down from hundreds of pages of writing to a summary that's a couple paragraphs long, then all these summaries are in potential danger. To my knowledge there's no criteria that lets you only find LLM summaries infringing without leaving an opening for the lawyers to expand the reach to target all summaries of copyrighted content.

Even if true wiki would escape via fair use and AI would not. It is possible that the laws and judgements are inconsistent nonsense but assuming they are not the fact that wiki has been around for decades suggests at least one key difference.

Just because Wikipedia has persisted for 20+ years doesn't mean that a key decision later down the line can't make it into an open season for all IP owners. AI-related lawsuits are a great opportunity for copyright owners to greatly shake up the status quo under the (fairly legitimate) guise of protecting themselves from LLM copying. Even if Wikipedia in particular could skirt it through fair use, the fact that hundred-word long summaries would be found "similar" to full novels would represent a large encroachment of copyright that would allow many other lawsuits to open up with entities who may not be as lucky as Wikipedia. Changing the answer to "Is something as brief as this notably similar to a full work?" from "what? Of course not" to "well... do you have a fair use reason?" would mean that many people will need to start looking both ways and triple-checking whatever they create/summarize/report on as to avoid tipping off anyone hungry for some settlement money.

The llm summary is probably largely based on the Wikipedia summary…

It's probably based on most of the content about Game of Thrones that was within the dataset. Regardless, this isn't what the case is about. The authors argue that the summary text itself is infringing, regardless of all other circumstances. Where ChatGPT got the info or how exactly the text was generated is unimportant, this is solely about the summary.

Yes, I think the crux of the matter is what constitutes fair use and what doesn't. And I would say that a summary in an encyclopedia article about a copyrighted work is not only fair use, but also in the work's own interest, while being ingested and regurgitated by an LLM isn't, so... The article only mentions that twice, in passing.

What are you basing that on?

Fair use in usa is based on 4 factors - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors

I think LLM summarizing a work would largely meet the traditional test.

Im also not sure why llm summarizing the work wouldnt be in the interest of the work. It seems like it would to me to the same extent a wikipedia summary would be.

No, it’s more fundamental than fair use. Fair use is a defence to a copyright infringement. It’s an argument that, yes, I did violate the copyright of the creator, but my violation should be allowed.

The issue here is, what are creators allowed to own and control. It’s about the fundamental question of what copyright gives the creators control over.

Does creating a picture mean you own the right to its description? And you have the right to prevent anyone else from describing your picture?

Does creating a movie give you the right to its novelization? I think the answer would be yes. With that in mind why wouldn't creating a picture give you the right to its description (subject to fair use)

In general i think fair use serves as a good balance for these types of questions.

> Does creating a movie give you the right to its novelization?

Go to imdb and see some of plot summaries there. Is that what you call "novelization"? Are you going to sue that site?

> Is that what you call "novelization"?

No, because that's not what the definition of novelization is. By novelization i mean when someone makes a novel version of a movie.

The point im trying to make here is we regularly expect translations from one medium to another to be copyrighted, so why is this different?

> Are you going to sue that site?

No, because i believe it to be a pretty text book example of fair use.

There's no reason the LLMs summary would not be considered "in the work's own interest" if Wikipedia's summary is.