3 ms·
That's not true at all. If you pay someone to copy NYT articles for you verbatim, and then they give the copies to you, and then you publish them online, then y
by tsimionescu 3y ago
That's not true at all. If you pay someone to copy NYT articles for you verbatim, and then they give the copies to you, and then you publish them online, then you've both violated the copyright. You are never allowed to make copies of copyrighted works, even for private deals (making such copies for purely personal use, such as archival, falls under fair use - but you can't build a service out of that).
So, if the summaries are derived works and not covered by fair use, then both you and the summarizee are separately breaking the NYT's copyrights. Otherwise, if this is covered by fair use, then you are both in the clear.
Finally, GPT is not "a summarization tool" in this case. If you provide a copy of a NYT article as a prompt and then ask for summarization, then yes, it is clear that GPT is not doing anything wrong, even if it spits out the exact same text. But if you simply ask for a summary of a specific article by, say, just name and date, and you get a copy of it, it's clear that GPT is storing the original data in some way, and thus it has copied the NYT's protected works without permission.
- logicchains 3y ago>But if you simply ask for a summary of a specific article by, say, just name and date, and you get a copy of it, it's clear that GPT is storing the original data in some way, and thus it has copied the NYT's protected works without permission. In this particular case they were using it via Bing, which actively did a HTTP request to the particular article to extract the content. So GPT hadn't memorised it verbatim, instead it fetched it, much like a human using a search engine would.
- tsimionescu 3y agoThe article states that they used it initially through ChatGPT, but that seems to have been fixed in the meantime, at least for the very simplistic queries that used to work ("the first paragraph of the Carl Zimmer article on old DNA" in ChatGPT used to return the exact data from NYT, and "next paragraph" could then be used to get the following ones). Even if this has been fixed, it still proves that ChatGPT encodes exact copies of NYT articles in its weights, which may be a violation in itself, even if it is prevented from returning them directly. Especially if they ever started distributing the trained model. Additionally, even the use through Copilot is very debatable. They are not returning the NYT link, which requires a subscription, they are returning the contents of it even to non-subscribers. And they are doing this in a commercial product, not a non profit like the Internet Archive, which has some arguments for fair use.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoIf it had exact copies they would have showed it could recall the 8th paragraph or something. Even google and the nyt release the first paragraph for free.
- tsimionescu 3y agoThey say that asking for "next paragraph" used to return the next paragraph up until the whole article had been returned.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoAlso, ChatGPT isn't a person with rights and duties. The people that made it are responsible for it.