5 ms·
I mean I’m no lawyer but this doesn’t strike me as a great example for infringement? Detailed summaries of books sounds like textbook transformative use. Especi
by jeffgreco 3y ago
I mean I’m no lawyer but this doesn’t strike me as a great example for infringement? Detailed summaries of books sounds like textbook transformative use. Especially in Silverman’s case, reducing her book to “facts” while eliminating artistic elements of her prose make it that much less of a direct substitute for the original work.
- citizenkeen 3y agoHaven't read the complaint, but there might be an argument that OpenAI used stolen works to train their data, and as such fair use doesn't apply.
- georgeoliver 3y agoPerhaps not, I thought one of the claims is interesting though, that they illegally acquired some of the dataset. What would be the damages from that, the retail price of the hardcopy?
- getmeinrn 3y agoWouldn't they first need to prove that OpenAI didn't ingest summaries of the book, and not the book itself?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Jolter 3y agoI think this can to some extent be determined in the discovery phase of the lawsuit. We probably could have some interesting outputs from this process.
- banana_feather 3y agoThe remedies under Title 17 are an injunction against further distribution, disgorgement or statutory damages, and potentially attorneys fees. The injunction part is why these cases usually settle if the defendant is actually in the wrong.
- dclowd9901 3y agoCould a suitably prompted LLM repeat, verbatim, the book in its entirety?
- jeffgreco 3y agoPerhaps? But certainly not what’s shown here.
- jrm4 3y agoThe more I think about it, I think it will (and should) turn on the extent to which "the law" considers the AI's to be more like "people" or more like "machines?" People can read and do research and then spit out something different. But "feeding the data into a machine" seems like obvious infringement, even if the thing that comes out on the other end isn't exactly the same?
- binarymax 3y agoI can see a good argument in the complaint. The provenance of the training data leads back to it being acquired illegally. Illegally acquired materials were then used in a commercial venture. That the venture was an AI model is perhaps beside the point. You can’t use illegally acquired materials when doing business.
- refulgentis 3y agoIt seems like a weak argument, in that it is just as likely it saw any number of things about it, from book reviews to sales listings to interviews.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoUnless OpenAI can prove that the outputs are derived from legally vs illegally-obtained outputs, not sure that’s going to matter. And as far as I understand about their models, that’s effectively impossible.
- kevinventullo 3y agoIsn’t the burden of proof on the other side?
- bugglebeetle 3y agoNot when OpenAI publicly declared they trained on pirated works. I can’t imagine “we can’t tell if this is the result of the illegal thing we did or not” is going to stand up very well, nor does it bode well for any refutation of the plaintiff’s depiction of their intent. Part of fair use consideration is commercial impact and when you steal a bunch of books to train your AI model, it’s hard to refute that the impact is not negative or that you didn’t intend commercial harm.
- pama 3y agoPlease read more carefully. OpenAI never “declared they trained on pirated works.”