3 ms·

Is it legal to publish books with content copied from chatgpt output? Is it possible to prove (in a legal sense) that this content comes from chatgpt?

by thih9 4y ago

low_tech_love 4y ago
Very good question; the original review that prompted (pun intended) me to search the author up certainly proves that at least one of his books are from ChatGPT: https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B0BWVH451G/ref=acr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B0BWVH451G/ref=acr_dp... And obviously he did not really even attempt to hide anything. Whether it's legal or not: I don't think we have a clear, 100% obvious understanding of the consequences right now, but I'm pretty sure OpenAI couldn't care less. Suing people who use ChatGPT to publish meaningless books would surely not do them any good. Who else might care enough?
inetsee 4y ago
The Copyright Office has decreed that AI generated content cannot be Copyrighted. If these books have a copyright listing then they are a violation of the rules. I doubt if the "author" is at risk for legal repurcussions, beyond not being able to sue for copyright violation.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  I have yet to see a legal argument that says the output of ChatGPT is free from derivative works claims. So you can't assert ownership of the output, but that doesn't mean someone else can't assert rights on the grounds of derivative works. It is one of the reasons I don't see Copilot going anywhere. Any company that uses it can't assert ownership over their own IP, and if Copilot accidently reproduces a chunk of training data verbatim then someone else can.
  - circuit10 4y ago
    I doubt many codebases are 100% generated by Copilot with no human input, and it’s not like having some Copilot snippets in your code is going to invalidate the copyright on the whole thing… I think that’s like being worried that writing parts of a book in a public domain font is going to invalidate the copyright on it The copying verbatim thing is valid though, although they have mitigations against that
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  The "author" can't sue for copying? That's probably pretty safe; who is going to want to copy one of these books?
- kube-system 4y ago
  There is nuance in the statement that you're referring to. Works created by an AI are not copyrightable, but works created by humans who use AI tools are copyrightable. Non-humans do not have copy rights from the things they create. However, humans have copy rights even when they use tools.
- throwaway049 4y ago
  Imagine suing because someone ripped off your crappy ai-generated book: The court awards the plaintiff damages of 1 cent.
topkai22 4y ago
I’m not a lawyer, but I really doubt it’d be illegal in the US at least. Just creating a book from ChatGPT is not against its terms of service, as “ OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output. This means you can use Content for any purpose, including commercial purposes such as sale or publication, if you comply with these Terms.” What would be against the TOS is claiming that the output is human generated, so theoretically OpenAI could sue. The courts have recently held that AI generated images are not copyrightable, so these “books” are basically just public domain content (where they aren’t directly copying existing human generated content). It’s not illegal to republish public domain content as your own. The thing that might be straight up illegal here is the reviews. Those appear to be completely fake and probably constitute fraud.
- vkou 4y ago
  > OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output How can it do that? ChatGPT isn't capable of owning or assigning copyright, because only humans can produce copyrighted works (or enter into copyright assignment contracts - typical in employment contracts), and ChatGPT isn't human. It's giving you something that it doesn't own.
  - hodgesrm 4y ago
    That's a standard phrase to make lawyers happy. It means what whatever else happens and whoever else may claim title to the work OpenAI won't come after you. They are free to put this in their terms of service; many companies will refuse to use it without such a disclaimer. Where it gets entertaining is in Section 7. Indemnification; Disclaimer of Warranties; Limitations on Liability, which contains the following gem: (a) Indemnity. You will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless us, our affiliates, and our personnel, from and against any claims, losses, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) arising from or relating to your use of the Services, including your Content, products or services you develop or offer in connection with the Services, and your breach of these Terms or violation of applicable law. [0] Unlike normal Terms of Service where the vendor accepts liability and/or indemnifies the user against IP violations or other issues, this clause turns things around. If there's a problem you the user must mount a legal defense for OpenAI. By using Chat GPT you are enrolling in the legion of its defenders. Who says contract law isn't fun? [0] https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use Edit: pedantic wordsmithing

Is it legal to publish books with content copied from chatgpt output? Is it possible to prove (in a legal sense) that this content comes from chatgpt?

by thih9 4y ago

Is it legal to publish books with content copied from chatgpt output? Is it possible to prove (in a legal sense) that this content comes from chatgpt?

low_tech_love 4y ago

Very good question; the original review that prompted (pun intended) me to search the author up certainly proves that at least one of his books are from ChatGPT: https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B0BWVH451G/ref=acr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B0BWVH451G/ref=acr_dp... And obviously he did not really even attempt to hide anything. Whether it's legal or not: I don't think we have a clear, 100% obvious understanding of the consequences right now, but I'm pretty sure OpenAI couldn't care less. Suing people who use ChatGPT to publish meaningless books would surely not do them any good. Who else might care enough?

inetsee 4y ago

The Copyright Office has decreed that AI generated content cannot be Copyrighted. If these books have a copyright listing then they are a violation of the rules. I doubt if the "author" is at risk for legal repurcussions, beyond not being able to sue for copyright violation.

stonemetal12 4y ago
I have yet to see a legal argument that says the output of ChatGPT is free from derivative works claims. So you can't assert ownership of the output, but that doesn't mean someone else can't assert rights on the grounds of derivative works. It is one of the reasons I don't see Copilot going anywhere. Any company that uses it can't assert ownership over their own IP, and if Copilot accidently reproduces a chunk of training data verbatim then someone else can.
- circuit10 4y ago
  I doubt many codebases are 100% generated by Copilot with no human input, and it’s not like having some Copilot snippets in your code is going to invalidate the copyright on the whole thing… I think that’s like being worried that writing parts of a book in a public domain font is going to invalidate the copyright on it The copying verbatim thing is valid though, although they have mitigations against that
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
The "author" can't sue for copying? That's probably pretty safe; who is going to want to copy one of these books?
kube-system 4y ago
There is nuance in the statement that you're referring to. Works created by an AI are not copyrightable, but works created by humans who use AI tools are copyrightable. Non-humans do not have copy rights from the things they create. However, humans have copy rights even when they use tools.
throwaway049 4y ago
Imagine suing because someone ripped off your crappy ai-generated book: The court awards the plaintiff damages of 1 cent.

topkai22 4y ago

I’m not a lawyer, but I really doubt it’d be illegal in the US at least. Just creating a book from ChatGPT is not against its terms of service, as “ OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output. This means you can use Content for any purpose, including commercial purposes such as sale or publication, if you comply with these Terms.” What would be against the TOS is claiming that the output is human generated, so theoretically OpenAI could sue. The courts have recently held that AI generated images are not copyrightable, so these “books” are basically just public domain content (where they aren’t directly copying existing human generated content). It’s not illegal to republish public domain content as your own. The thing that might be straight up illegal here is the reviews. Those appear to be completely fake and probably constitute fraud.

vkou 4y ago
> OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output How can it do that? ChatGPT isn't capable of owning or assigning copyright, because only humans can produce copyrighted works (or enter into copyright assignment contracts - typical in employment contracts), and ChatGPT isn't human. It's giving you something that it doesn't own.
- hodgesrm 4y ago
  That's a standard phrase to make lawyers happy. It means what whatever else happens and whoever else may claim title to the work OpenAI won't come after you. They are free to put this in their terms of service; many companies will refuse to use it without such a disclaimer. Where it gets entertaining is in Section 7. Indemnification; Disclaimer of Warranties; Limitations on Liability, which contains the following gem: (a) Indemnity. You will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless us, our affiliates, and our personnel, from and against any claims, losses, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) arising from or relating to your use of the Services, including your Content, products or services you develop or offer in connection with the Services, and your breach of these Terms or violation of applicable law. [0] Unlike normal Terms of Service where the vendor accepts liability and/or indemnifies the user against IP violations or other issues, this clause turns things around. If there's a problem you the user must mount a legal defense for OpenAI. By using Chat GPT you are enrolling in the legion of its defenders. Who says contract law isn't fun? [0] https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use Edit: pedantic wordsmithing