Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Friday December 29 2023, @03:13PM   Printer-friendly

New York Times Sues Microsoft, ChatGPT Maker OpenAI Over Copyright Infringement

The New York Times on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, the company behind popular AI chatbot ChatGPT, accusing the companies of creating a business model based on "mass copyright infringement," stating their AI systems "exploit and, in many cases, retain large portions of the copyrightable expression contained in those works:"

Microsoft both invests in and supplies OpenAI, providing it with access to the Redmond, Washington, giant's Azure cloud computing technology.

The publisher said in a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that it seeks to hold Microsoft and OpenAI to account for the "billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages" it believes it is owed for the "unlawful copying and use of The Times's uniquely valuable works."

[...] The Times said in an emailed statement that it "recognizes the power and potential of GenAI for the public and for journalism," but added that journalistic material should be used for commercial gain with permission from the original source.

"These tools were built with and continue to use independent journalism and content that is only available because we and our peers reported, edited, and fact-checked it at high cost and with considerable expertise," the Times said.

"Settled copyright law protects our journalism and content. If Microsoft and OpenAI want to use our work for commercial purposes, the law requires that they first obtain our permission. They have not done so."

[...] OpenAI has tried to allay news publishers concerns. In December, the company announced a partnership with Axel Springer — the parent company of Business Insider, Politico, and European outlets Bild and Welt — which would license its content to OpenAI in return for a fee.

Also at CNBC and The Guardian.

Previously:

NY Times Sues Open AI, Microsoft Over Copyright Infringement

NY Times sues Open AI, Microsoft over copyright infringement:

In August, word leaked out that The New York Times was considering joining the growing legion of creators that are suing AI companies for misappropriating their content. The Times had reportedly been negotiating with OpenAI regarding the potential to license its material, but those talks had not gone smoothly. So, eight months after the company was reportedly considering suing, the suit has now been filed.

The Times is targeting various companies under the OpenAI umbrella, as well as Microsoft, an OpenAI partner that both uses it to power its Copilot service and helped provide the infrastructure for training the GPT Large Language Model. But the suit goes well beyond the use of copyrighted material in training, alleging that OpenAI-powered software will happily circumvent the Times' paywall and ascribe hallucinated misinformation to the Times.

Journalism is expensive

The suit notes that The Times maintains a large staff that allows it to do things like dedicate reporters to a huge range of beats and engage in important investigative journalism, among other things. Because of those investments, the newspaper is often considered an authoritative source on many matters.

All of that costs money, and The Times earns that by limiting access to its reporting through a robust paywall. In addition, each print edition has a copyright notification, the Times' terms of service limit the copying and use of any published material, and it can be selective about how it licenses its stories. In addition to driving revenue, these restrictions also help it to maintain its reputation as an authoritative voice by controlling how its works appear.

The suit alleges that OpenAI-developed tools undermine all of that. "By providing Times content without The Times's permission or authorization, Defendants' tools undermine and damage The Times's relationship with its readers and deprive The Times of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue," the suit alleges.

Part of the unauthorized use The Times alleges came during the training of various versions of GPT. Prior to GPT-3.5, information about the training dataset was made public. One of the sources used is a large collection of online material called "Common Crawl," which the suit alleges contains information from 16 million unique records from sites published by The Times. That places the Times as the third most references source, behind Wikipedia and a database of US patents.

OpenAI no longer discloses as many details of the data used for training of recent GPT versions, but all indications are that full-text NY Times articles are still part of that process. [...] Expect access to training information to be a major issue during discovery if this case moves forward.

Not just training

A number of suits have been filed regarding the use of copyrighted material during training of AI systems. But the Times' suite goes well beyond that to show how the material ingested during training can come back out during use. "Defendants' GenAI tools can generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style, as demonstrated by scores of examples," the suit alleges.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

 
This discussion was created by martyb (76) 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, Troll) by DannyB on Friday December 29 2023, @04:24PM (4 children)

    by DannyB (5839) on Friday December 29 2023, @04:24PM (#1338244) Journal

    If you don't want people or machines to read your content, or view your images . . .

    DON'T PUT THEM ONLINE !!!

    --
    Some people need assistants to hire some assistance.
    Other people need assistance to hire some assistants.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Underrated=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2023, @05:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2023, @05:35PM (#1338264)

    How's that cave working for you? Drafty at all?

    I get what you're saying and all, but that ship has sailed. That other boat waiting for you is the B Ark.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by stormreaver on Friday December 29 2023, @07:34PM

    by stormreaver (5101) on Friday December 29 2023, @07:34PM (#1338274)

    If you don't want people or machines to read your content....

    They want people (not so much machines) to read their content, but they want to be paid for it (creating it is costly). That is totally reasonable. That OpenAI was caught red-handed holding the smoking gun (despite persistently lying about possessing the capability to hold one) is about as strong as a case can get.

    That said, the entire court experience is a case study in entropy at work, so I will not make a prediction. However, I hope OpenAI and Microsoft get taken to the cleaners.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mcgrew on Saturday December 30 2023, @12:05AM (1 child)

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday December 30 2023, @12:05AM (#1338294) Homepage Journal

    Copyright isn't about keeping you from reading the content, despite what the Music And Film Association of America (MAFIAA) would have you believe. It protects the author from the publisher, not from the reader. In the case of music, congress specifically legalized home recording in the US in the 1978 Home Recording Act. This despite the fact that copyright was always about publishing, not copying.

    Do you want to read my book? You might not have a chance if anybody can make money publishing it except me. It might not have even been written.

    That said, I give my stuff away. I'm trying to sell copies of the new one to join the SFWA, it will be free in September or sooner and I abhor Digital Restrictions Management and don't use it. But there aren't many like me, Harry Potter might have never existed had it not been for England's welfare laws.

    --
    It is a disgrace that the richest nation in the world has hunger and homelessness.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2023, @01:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 30 2023, @01:44PM (#1338347)

      > Copyright isn't about keeping you from reading the content, despite what the Music And Film Association of America (MAFIAA) would have you believe. It protects the author from the publisher, not from the reader.

      Wouldn't it be closer to correct to say that:
      a. (C) protects from unscrupulous publishers who would publish a work without entering into a contract with the creator.
      b. The barriers of entry to becoming a publisher have changed greatly with improved technology. With consumer audio/video tape, photocopy machines and now digital copies, just about anyone can be a publisher. It's now so easy that most people who copy works may not even recognize that they are publishing.