3 ms·

I agree that these content creators were not contacted individually and asked for specific consent to have their materials ingested for training purposes. That

I agree that these content creators were not contacted individually and asked for specific consent to have their materials ingested for training purposes. That being said - the general crux of the third-party doctrine (at least in the United States) is that information told to another party has no expectation of privacy. That seems to apply to a vast amount of 'user generated content' on the internet. Someone decided to utilize someone else's megaphone to post into the commons and now expects to retain some ownership. It's hard to have it both ways "just because someone else noticed." Unfortunately this also extends to general artistic styles. If you, as an artist, continues to create in a consistent style and someone else notices you don't have a lot of recourse when some entity is able to recreate a similar style. On a technical side this seems similar to your server responding to any incoming request with a 200 status and some content (LinkedIn v HiQ). In this case a user-agent asked (was it a person? scraper? AI training process?) and you gave it to "them". I guess we end up in the position where if you don't want to train AI then don't post your content publicly.

jprete 2y ago
Intellectual property and privacy aren't the same thing, so the third-party doctrine doesn't apply.
chuckadams 2y ago
> information told to another party has no expectation of privacy. I truly detest this phrase, but: “Citation Needed”
- linkjuice4all 2y ago
  If Alice tells Bob something there's nothing preventing Bob from telling Carol. The third-party doctrine kind of boils down to this - someone else noticed and you can't restrain them from telling anyone about it. Alice (content creator) told Bob (YouTube). Bob told Carol (OpenAI et al.) when Carol asked Bob for a video.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > If Alice tells Bob something there's nothing preventing Bob from telling Carol. This is only true in the absence of an agreement between Alice and Bob that Bob won't tattle.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jprete 2y ago

Intellectual property and privacy aren't the same thing, so the third-party doctrine doesn't apply.

chuckadams 2y ago

> information told to another party has no expectation of privacy. I truly detest this phrase, but: “Citation Needed”

linkjuice4all 2y ago
If Alice tells Bob something there's nothing preventing Bob from telling Carol. The third-party doctrine kind of boils down to this - someone else noticed and you can't restrain them from telling anyone about it. Alice (content creator) told Bob (YouTube). Bob told Carol (OpenAI et al.) when Carol asked Bob for a video.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > If Alice tells Bob something there's nothing preventing Bob from telling Carol. This is only true in the absence of an agreement between Alice and Bob that Bob won't tattle.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]