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This discussion was created by requerdanos (5997) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.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: 4, Interesting) by mcgrew on Thursday July 13 2023, @01:04AM (2 children)

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday July 13 2023, @01:04AM (#1315823) Homepage Journal

    I have some doubts

    Do you? Are you lost, little one? Google is your friend, evil as it is. Publishing on the open internet does NOT invalidate a copyright. Where did you come up with such a ridiculous idea?

    And FYI, the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution are NOT covered under copyright. Or recipes, dance, or clothing patterns. Educate yourself before you attempt to educate others.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by sigterm on Sunday July 16 2023, @06:49PM (1 child)

    by sigterm (849) on Sunday July 16 2023, @06:49PM (#1316364)

    Do you? Are you lost, little one? Google is your friend, evil as it is. Publishing on the open internet does NOT invalidate a copyright. Where did you come up with such a ridiculous idea?

    Where did you get the idea that I was arguing against copyright law? I'm not.

    Leaving aside the obvious copyright infringement that is wholesale reproduction of unaltered content, which is not being argued here: There is such a thing as "fair use." Unless ChatGPT is using the material in a non-novel way, and/or are creating a (derivative) product that takes market share from the original content, they'll have a hard time arguing that their copyright is being violated.

    Plaintiff: "Your Honor, defendant read/say the content we distributed on the Internet, and is now creating derivative works that only vaguely resemble the original!" Defendant: "Yes, we are." Judge: "That's perfectly allowed. Next case!"

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday July 22 2023, @09:04PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday July 22 2023, @09:04PM (#1317280) Homepage Journal

      How much and to what purpose? Even if it's a single sentence, if the author isn't credited, it's plagiarism. Fair use credits the original author. If he copies five paragraphs and puts "a passage from [name of work]:", or indented with a footnote after it is fair use. A sentence without credit is plagiarism, period. If the computer credits all those it copies with what it has copied, it may just be kosher. But I wouldn't bet on it.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org