3 ms·
As far as I'm aware, Google didn't create new versions of those books based on that content. Even if you want to argue that fair use didn't apply to Google, it
by krapp 2y ago
As far as I'm aware, Google didn't create new versions of those books based on that content.
Even if you want to argue that fair use didn't apply to Google, it clearly applies far less to what AI is used for.
- gruez 2y ago>As far as I'm aware, Google didn't create new versions of those books based on that content. It's _copy_right. If reproducing verbatim snippets was "transformative" enough to fall under fair use, I don't see why producing whole new books would not count as "transformative" enough. Copyright is a regime to grant monopoly over a specific work, it's not a regime to prevent competition from others in general.
- stillold 2y agoThere is an interesting argument here. If Google was selling brand new books created only by taking snippets from other books, that would also fall under fair use?
- gruez 2y agoThey would, but openai isn't explicitly doing that either. You can probably smuggle a full copy of a book via snippets, but that doesn't put google on the hook for copyright infringement. Likewise if openai makes you jump through hoops to produce works verbatim they should be in the clear.
- krapp 2y agoI would assume that Google's use counts as fair use precisely because they are only providing snippets in the context of a search utility which doesn't provide a market substitute for the original product, whereas the business model of AI is to provide market substitutes based on the original product.
- gruez 2y agoProviding a snippet arguably is a substitute of the original product in some contexts. For instance, if you wanted to know who ate the most burgers eaten in one sitting, then the snippet on google books fully replaces the full copy of Guiness World Records. Likewise for other sorts of information like how to inver a matrix.