3 ms·

Do they have a plan to pay royalties for all the copyrighted materials they obviously ingested into their system?

by aestetix 3y ago

cosmojg 3y ago
Probably not, given that model training is considered Fair Use under US copyright law.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  It's not. Maybe it will be, but at the moment there's no clear characterization: it could be fair use, or the biggest copyright infringement in history. Courts will tell, unless the legislators take a step before that.
- kkielhofner 3y ago
  Not a lawyer - just a guy in this space who also has a lifelong passion for hip-hop/rap/pop. This case is relevant[0]. I think there is a pretty strong argument that just about anything these models spit out is what the music industry would call a "sample" or "remix" that requires clearance and royalties. The Gaye case provided kicked it up a notch - winning damages for the "feel" of a song. [0] - https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-copyright https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-...
  - tensor 3y ago
    The music industry thinks every sound is a remix at this point, it's pretty bad example of where we want to go with copyright and ip if you ask me. Most artists get jack shit, every single thing is considered a remix or sample, and the majority go to the few at the top. If you simply hum a tune you make up on the spot a music industry lawyer would probably declare you owe them money.
    - kkielhofner 3y ago
      You may be right and I don't like it either but what matters is they win court cases.
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  "Fair Use" is not a thing that an act automatically falls into, it is a blurred line that can be argued in court (see what I did there?) Being that fair use provisions in general protect "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" [0] I really don't see what it has to do with a commercial entity reproducing the content of creative work. In particular I feel that OpenAI loses in the following test: "4: Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread."[0] FWIW I support the abolition of copyright, but I think OpenAI should be lobbying to change the law if they want to argue that everything is a remix and no one owns their creative work. [0] https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/
CatWChainsaw 3y ago
No, but they do have a plan to lock down use, make people pay for it in ever-increasing subscriptions, and retain a perpetual license to all outputs.

Do they have a plan to pay royalties for all the copyrighted materials they obviously ingested into their system?

cosmojg 3y ago

Probably not, given that model training is considered Fair Use under US copyright law.

littlestymaar 3y ago
It's not. Maybe it will be, but at the moment there's no clear characterization: it could be fair use, or the biggest copyright infringement in history. Courts will tell, unless the legislators take a step before that.
kkielhofner 3y ago
Not a lawyer - just a guy in this space who also has a lifelong passion for hip-hop/rap/pop. This case is relevant[0]. I think there is a pretty strong argument that just about anything these models spit out is what the music industry would call a "sample" or "remix" that requires clearance and royalties. The Gaye case provided kicked it up a notch - winning damages for the "feel" of a song. [0] - https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-copyright https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/blurred-lines-...
- tensor 3y ago
  The music industry thinks every sound is a remix at this point, it's pretty bad example of where we want to go with copyright and ip if you ask me. Most artists get jack shit, every single thing is considered a remix or sample, and the majority go to the few at the top. If you simply hum a tune you make up on the spot a music industry lawyer would probably declare you owe them money.
  - kkielhofner 3y ago
    You may be right and I don't like it either but what matters is they win court cases.
jazzyjackson 3y ago
"Fair Use" is not a thing that an act automatically falls into, it is a blurred line that can be argued in court (see what I did there?) Being that fair use provisions in general protect "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" [0] I really don't see what it has to do with a commercial entity reproducing the content of creative work. In particular I feel that OpenAI loses in the following test: "4: Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread."[0] FWIW I support the abolition of copyright, but I think OpenAI should be lobbying to change the law if they want to argue that everything is a remix and no one owns their creative work. [0] https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

No, but they do have a plan to lock down use, make people pay for it in ever-increasing subscriptions, and retain a perpetual license to all outputs.