Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by requerdanos on Wednesday July 12 2023, @09:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the regurgitation dept.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/book-authors-sue-openai-and-meta-over-text-used-to-train-ai/

On Friday, the Joseph Saveri Law Firm filed US federal class-action lawsuits on behalf of Sarah Silverman and other authors against OpenAI and Meta, accusing the companies of illegally using copyrighted material to train AI language models such as ChatGPT and LLaMA.

Other authors represented include Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey, and an earlier class-action lawsuit filed by the same firm on June 28 included authors Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad. Each lawsuit alleges violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, unfair competition laws, and negligence.

[...] Authors claim that by utilizing "flagrantly illegal" data sets, OpenAI allegedly infringed copyrights of Silverman's book The Bedwetter, Golden's Ararat, and Kadrey's Sandman Slime. And Meta allegedly infringed copyrights of the same three books, as well as "several" other titles from Golden and Kadrey.

[...] Authors are already upset that companies seem to be unfairly profiting off their copyrighted materials, and the Meta lawsuit noted that any unfair profits currently gained could further balloon, as "Meta plans to make the next version of LLaMA commercially available." In addition to other damages, the authors are asking for restitution of alleged profits lost.

"Much of the material in the training datasets used by OpenAI and Meta comes from copyrighted works—including books written by plain­tiffs—that were copied by OpenAI and Meta without consent, without credit, and without compensation," Saveri and Butterick wrote in their press release.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by requerdanos (5997) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 12 2023, @05:08PM (6 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday July 12 2023, @05:08PM (#1315728)

    The real problem is that artists and authors and musicians and filmmakers need to eat and have a roof over their head, and the only way they can do so is if somebody has to pay them for their work. That's what copyright was supposed to do for them.

    Of course, Disney et al have worked hard to turn copyright into something that protects Disney and not writers who work for Disney (for example), but there was at least some reasonableness behind the concept once.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by pTamok on Wednesday July 12 2023, @06:14PM (1 child)

    by pTamok (3042) on Wednesday July 12 2023, @06:14PM (#1315742)

    Simple.

    Copyrights can only be owned by natural humans, not corporations. Licences can only be non-exclusive.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday July 13 2023, @01:03AM

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday July 13 2023, @01:03AM (#1315821)

      Copyrights can only be owned by natural humans, not corporations. Licenses can only be non-exclusive.

      To expand a bit on this, copyrights should only ever be able to be owned by the actual creators, with perhaps a brief period where death or incapacity might allow it to be transferred to an heir. Otherwise, if transferred or sold any copyright is voided. At any rate a copyright should not last for more than 12 years or so. Limited licensing for distribution should be allowed for a short period (3 years? 5 years? 7 years?) with maybe one 3 year renewal being allowed. In every case the original creator should be able to make full personal use of their own copyrighted work.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by legont on Thursday July 13 2023, @12:52AM (3 children)

    by legont (4179) on Thursday July 13 2023, @12:52AM (#1315817)

    All those artists can make their living by open air live performances where tickets are sold for physical beings to attend.
    As per their creations, they are free as birds for anybody to take.
    Yes, they are not supposed to be rich. Rich makes bad art. Only poor - preferably near to death poor - makes good art.

    --
    "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by mcgrew on Thursday July 13 2023, @01:10AM (2 children)

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday July 13 2023, @01:10AM (#1315824) Homepage Journal

      Only poor - preferably near to death poor - makes good art.

      Says the man who knows absolutely nothing about any art form whatever. Yes, I was an art student, kid, half a century ago. Those who think they know everything are annoying to those who know nobody does.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday July 19 2023, @02:06AM (1 child)

        by legont (4179) on Wednesday July 19 2023, @02:06AM (#1316773)

        Let me guess - you didn't make any significant art.

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.