5 ms·

It's a trademark application, not a copyright application. Quite different. You see copyrighted material is that which a GPT has been trained on, without any re

It's a trademark application, not a copyright application. Quite different. You see copyrighted material is that which a GPT has been trained on, without any regards to those rights or protections. While a GPT trademark, on the other hand, is an underhanded attempt to leverage that same disregarded legal protection to secure an exclusive brand for itself, in spite of existing uses of the generic acronym.

matemp 4y ago
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8-4a68-bdb1-2e4fa194b7ad https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8...
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
So the first one is a positive while the second is a negative? And they fully considered the rights of ever bit of copyrighted material they consumed. It's not their fault random people on the internet don't understand what those rights are.
- ben_w 4y ago
  They do different things. Trademarks protect consumers from rip-off copies pretending to be what they want, copyright protects content creators from rip-off copies that genuinely are what consumers want.
- bombolo 4y ago
  > And they fully considered the rights of ever bit of copyrighted material they consumed. Yes, they considered and decided that they are big enough to violate and do what they want, since they aren't violating rights of other big entities, just of nobodies.
  - tick_tock_tick 4y ago
    Feel free to cite what they violated. People are really quick to claim this but can't back it up or grab one of two sentences from one of the copyright statutes and claim it's a clear violation without any understanding of what they just copied.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Grabbing random sentences from statue is a way for non-lawyers to get horribly confused. Those old Dilbert strips, the pointy-haired boss saying "I removed all your semicolons" or "I think mauve has the most RAM"? Lawyers will see us as the PHB. So, while I can point to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/957583/Copyright-designs-and-patents-act-1988.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... and quote from it: """ 17 Infringement of copyright by copying … (2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means. (3) In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work. (4) Copying in relation to a film or broadcast includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film or broadcast. … (6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work. """ I'm not even remotely a lawyer, so I don't know if this is as relevant as it appears. But it does appear relevant.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
johndhi 4y ago
low key funny post
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zvolsky 4y ago
Unlike copyright, trademarks are used to protect consumers from misleading products that pretend to be the real thing.
- matemp 4y ago
  https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8-4a68-bdb1-2e4fa194b7ad https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8...
- hgsgm 4y ago
  In this case the trademark is to mislead consumers into thinking that Altman AI's GPT is the only one of its kind.
  - matemp 4y ago
    https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8-4a68-bdb1-2e4fa194b7ad https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8...
  - verdverm 4y ago
    Agreed, GPT has become too common for a trademark to be approved. It can even be revoked for becoming too common of a word for something, like "escalator" had happen many years ago. https://www.bentley.edu/news/popular-brands-had-their-trademarks-revoked-law https://www.bentley.edu/news/popular-brands-had-their-tradem...
  - zvolsky 4y ago
    Perhaps ChatGPT wasn't the best name for a product and OpenAI would have gone with something more trademarkable if they knew it would become such a hit. Still, my comment above is a simple application of Hanlon's razor.
    - wongarsu 4y ago
      ChatGPT is fine as a name, it's pretty distinct. But GPT2, GPT3, GPT4 is OpenAI using the term GPT as if they are the only ones making them. And apart from EleutherAI nobody really challenged that naming conventions so far.
fsckboy 4y ago
>copyrighted material is that which a GPT has been trained on, without any regards to those rights or protections AI's do not qualify as entities that can claim copy rights or protections, which ironically makes them not qualify as entities that can infringe copy rights or protections either.
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  Good thing AI's are owned by companies that are fully culpable for their monetized product's output, then.

matemp 4y ago

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8-4a68-bdb1-2e4fa194b7ad https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8...

tick_tock_tick 4y ago

So the first one is a positive while the second is a negative? And they fully considered the rights of ever bit of copyrighted material they consumed. It's not their fault random people on the internet don't understand what those rights are.

ben_w 4y ago
They do different things. Trademarks protect consumers from rip-off copies pretending to be what they want, copyright protects content creators from rip-off copies that genuinely are what consumers want.
bombolo 4y ago
> And they fully considered the rights of ever bit of copyrighted material they consumed. Yes, they considered and decided that they are big enough to violate and do what they want, since they aren't violating rights of other big entities, just of nobodies.
- tick_tock_tick 4y ago
  Feel free to cite what they violated. People are really quick to claim this but can't back it up or grab one of two sentences from one of the copyright statutes and claim it's a clear violation without any understanding of what they just copied.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Grabbing random sentences from statue is a way for non-lawyers to get horribly confused. Those old Dilbert strips, the pointy-haired boss saying "I removed all your semicolons" or "I think mauve has the most RAM"? Lawyers will see us as the PHB. So, while I can point to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/957583/Copyright-designs-and-patents-act-1988.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... and quote from it: """ 17 Infringement of copyright by copying … (2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means. (3) In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work. (4) Copying in relation to a film or broadcast includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film or broadcast. … (6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work. """ I'm not even remotely a lawyer, so I don't know if this is as relevant as it appears. But it does appear relevant.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

johndhi 4y ago

low key funny post

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

zvolsky 4y ago

Unlike copyright, trademarks are used to protect consumers from misleading products that pretend to be the real thing.

matemp 4y ago
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8-4a68-bdb1-2e4fa194b7ad https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8...
hgsgm 4y ago
In this case the trademark is to mislead consumers into thinking that Altman AI's GPT is the only one of its kind.
- matemp 4y ago
  https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8-4a68-bdb1-2e4fa194b7ad https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=763049f7-7ef8...
- verdverm 4y ago
  Agreed, GPT has become too common for a trademark to be approved. It can even be revoked for becoming too common of a word for something, like "escalator" had happen many years ago. https://www.bentley.edu/news/popular-brands-had-their-trademarks-revoked-law https://www.bentley.edu/news/popular-brands-had-their-tradem...
- zvolsky 4y ago
  Perhaps ChatGPT wasn't the best name for a product and OpenAI would have gone with something more trademarkable if they knew it would become such a hit. Still, my comment above is a simple application of Hanlon's razor.
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    ChatGPT is fine as a name, it's pretty distinct. But GPT2, GPT3, GPT4 is OpenAI using the term GPT as if they are the only ones making them. And apart from EleutherAI nobody really challenged that naming conventions so far.

fsckboy 4y ago

>copyrighted material is that which a GPT has been trained on, without any regards to those rights or protections AI's do not qualify as entities that can claim copy rights or protections, which ironically makes them not qualify as entities that can infringe copy rights or protections either.

TheRealPomax 4y ago
Good thing AI's are owned by companies that are fully culpable for their monetized product's output, then.