27 ms·

> The court declined to dismiss copyright infringement claims against the AI companies. That "major win" being allowed to proceed with the case at all. All the

> The court declined to dismiss copyright infringement claims against the AI companies. That "major win" being allowed to proceed with the case at all. All they've done is clear the first hurdle meant to kill frivolous lawsuits before they get to discovery. Their other claims were dismissed: > Claims against the companies for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, plus violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for removal of information identifying intellectual property, were dismissed. The case will move forward to discovery, where the artists could uncover information related to the way in which the AI firms harvested copyrighted materials that were then used to train large language models.

__loam 2y ago
I'm very excited for discovery.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Didn't the Enron dataset that's now part of the Pile become public during discovery too? Some great image datasets might drop.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    IANAL but documents don't become public during discovery, they only become public if they're filed with the court (unless they're sealed). The vast majority of information dredged up during discovery remains confidential.
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      But things like datasets are massive and structure is important. Do they retain them digitally with the same original structure or do they transform them into some kind of massive PDF?
      - williamcotton 2y ago
        If the experts are playing hardball then transformations of any and everything into PDFs is an effective tactic.
        singleshot_ 2y ago
        No. See the various state rules of civil procedure concerning the presumptive and requested form of production of electronically stored information. An example is Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26.1(c)(3).
        williamcotton 2y ago
        I've seen plenty of productions of source code, email tranches, and database dumps in PDF format in both state and federal suits this year alone. I've never worked with the courts in Arizona so perhaps this kind of gamesmanship is not allowed.
        nomel 2y ago
        Related, I worked at a company that had a standards body forced information sharing agreement with a competitor. One of the requirements was that documentation had to be shared. Unfortunately, our documentation was a very well formatted with links and was searchable, making it easy to navigate. So in an act of malicious compliance, the few thousand page document was printed then scanned to low res, jpg artifact filled, crooked, but still legible, set of images that were shared as a fairly useless pdf.
        gamblor956 2y ago
        There was a time that would have worked because most judges didn't even know how to turn on their computers, much less the difference in file types. Now, do the same thing and the judge would fine the company, and its lawyers, for failing to comply with discovery. And if the judge is super pissed off, they may issue a warrant for the CEO to spend a few nights in jail thinking about his decision-making process.
  - ronsor 2y ago
    The dataset is already public. That's the only reason they were able to file this time-wasting lawsuit anyway.
    - polotics 2y ago
      Why do you think it is time wasting? Is it because of the wasted time of all the artists having gone to the bother of producing art that can now be approximated at the press of a button?
      - ronsor 2y ago
        It's a waste of time because the majority of their claims were poorly constructed, disingenuous, and subsequently thrown out. All this has done is incentivize AI research companies to be even more closed and opaque.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        And that will get them more lawsuits until some judge has had enough of their tricks and forces something drastic.
mc32 2y ago
Will the plaintiffs get similar relief to the one IP holders got from Megaupload, I wonder?
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Gotta love headlines clearly altered by someone other than the writer. The lede literally says: >Artists suing generative artificial intelligence art generators have cleared a major hurdle Not "major win".

__loam 2y ago

I'm very excited for discovery.

moffkalast 2y ago
Didn't the Enron dataset that's now part of the Pile become public during discovery too? Some great image datasets might drop.
- throwup238 2y ago
  IANAL but documents don't become public during discovery, they only become public if they're filed with the court (unless they're sealed). The vast majority of information dredged up during discovery remains confidential.
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    But things like datasets are massive and structure is important. Do they retain them digitally with the same original structure or do they transform them into some kind of massive PDF?
    - williamcotton 2y ago
      If the experts are playing hardball then transformations of any and everything into PDFs is an effective tactic.
      - singleshot_ 2y ago
        No. See the various state rules of civil procedure concerning the presumptive and requested form of production of electronically stored information. An example is Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26.1(c)(3).
        williamcotton 2y ago
        I've seen plenty of productions of source code, email tranches, and database dumps in PDF format in both state and federal suits this year alone. I've never worked with the courts in Arizona so perhaps this kind of gamesmanship is not allowed.
      - nomel 2y ago
        Related, I worked at a company that had a standards body forced information sharing agreement with a competitor. One of the requirements was that documentation had to be shared. Unfortunately, our documentation was a very well formatted with links and was searchable, making it easy to navigate. So in an act of malicious compliance, the few thousand page document was printed then scanned to low res, jpg artifact filled, crooked, but still legible, set of images that were shared as a fairly useless pdf.
        gamblor956 2y ago
        There was a time that would have worked because most judges didn't even know how to turn on their computers, much less the difference in file types. Now, do the same thing and the judge would fine the company, and its lawyers, for failing to comply with discovery. And if the judge is super pissed off, they may issue a warrant for the CEO to spend a few nights in jail thinking about his decision-making process.
- ronsor 2y ago
  The dataset is already public. That's the only reason they were able to file this time-wasting lawsuit anyway.
  - polotics 2y ago
    Why do you think it is time wasting? Is it because of the wasted time of all the artists having gone to the bother of producing art that can now be approximated at the press of a button?
    - ronsor 2y ago
      It's a waste of time because the majority of their claims were poorly constructed, disingenuous, and subsequently thrown out. All this has done is incentivize AI research companies to be even more closed and opaque.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        And that will get them more lawsuits until some judge has had enough of their tricks and forces something drastic.

mc32 2y ago

Will the plaintiffs get similar relief to the one IP holders got from Megaupload, I wonder?

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Gotta love headlines clearly altered by someone other than the writer. The lede literally says: >Artists suing generative artificial intelligence art generators have cleared a major hurdle Not "major win".