2 ms·
Substantially similar is the standard https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10922 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10922 > Unde
by evdubs 2y ago
Substantially similar is the standard
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10922 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10922
> Under U.S. case law, copyright owners may be able to show that such outputs infringe their copyrights if the AI program both (1) had access to their works and (2) created “substantially similar” outputs
From Shaw v Lindheim.
> Their own lawyers would be on their case if they were infringing halfway through the pipeline.
This is why many of these AI companies are their own entities with sponsorships or shares held by other, larger companies. If they're on the hook for obscene copyright infringement, they just close down.
- worstspotgain 2y ago> Substantially similar is the standard This quote is about AI, not movies. If you read the entire report, there are many other caveats and provisions: Whether or not copying constitutes fair use depends on four statutory factors under 17 U.S.C. § 107: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. and furthermore: The substantial similarity test is difficult to define and varies across U.S. courts.