11 ms·
Beat me to it. That said, I'm not sure the caselaw is that clear. For example, in Authors Guild v Google, the courts found Google's use of copyrighted works t
by BaseballPhysics 3y ago
Beat me to it.
That said, I'm not sure the caselaw is that clear. For example, in Authors Guild v Google, the courts found Google's use of copyrighted works to build a search index as fair use:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Googl....
In particular, of the four factor test (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_facto...), in Authors Guild the judge found that the authors didn't experience economic damage from the copying.
In the case of LLMs, can the affected artists argue for economic damages? That's not obvious to me.
- twoodfin 3y agoGoogle Books was a wildly distinct use, though. There’s plenty of support in copyright law for fair use claims around indexing and excerpting for such purposes. As for economic damages, that seems easy: One obvious use of the model is to create derivative works that could economically compete with the original creators’ works. Simpler examples make this clear: I love Disney animated films. I love them so much I build a model & train it on the complete corpus of Disney animated films. My model is a success, and can produce new films which more or less echo the style, characters, themes of the Disney films. This is not what Google was doing. The creative work was the well-organized, efficient index, not new books or a program to write them.