4 ms·

In this case the correct analogy would be you brought a stolen painting into your house, looked at it for a while, and then produced your derivative work. Sure

• getmeinrn 3y ago
  Yes, I acknowledged that piracy is illegal in my previous post. That's not what the lawsuit is about, according to The Verge: >In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights.
  • binarymax 3y ago
    That serves as evidence that the model has seen the material, and the only way the model could have seen the material is if it was pirated.
    • 8note 3y ago
      That assumption is the reason why it's a shady argument for infringement. There's other ways to get a summary of a book than reading it, like asking a friend who's read it to give a summary
    • getmeinrn 3y ago
      You're missing the bigger picture[1]: Numerous questions of law or fact common to each Class arise from Defendants’ conduct: whether ChatGPT itself is an infringing derivative work based on Plaintiffs’ copyrighted books; whether the text outputs of ChatGPT are infringing derivative works based on Plaintiffs’ copyrighted books; It's not a simple case of "you used our copyrighted materials", it's "you're infringing on our copyright by producing works derived from materials that you used." 1. https://llmlitigation.com/pdf/03223/tremblay-openai-complaint.pdf https://llmlitigation.com/pdf/03223/tremblay-openai-complain...