3 ms·

Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. You can use copyrighted material all day long without a license or penalty. In particular, anyone

Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. You can use copyrighted material all day long without a license or penalty. In particular, anyone is allowed to learn from copyrighted material by reading, hearing, or seeing it. Copyright is intended to prevent everyone from copying a person's work. That's a very different thing.

soared 2y ago
There is an argument to be made that ChatGPT mildly rewording/misquoting info directly from my blog is copying.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- munchler 2y ago
  Sure, but that's a different claim and a different argument.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  And it is. And you can sue them for that. What you can’t do is get upset they (or their AI) read it.
- amiantos 2y ago
  I think to make that argument you would need evidence that someone prompted ChatGPT to reword/misquote info directly from your blog, at which point the argument would be that that person is rewording/misquoting info directly from your blog, not ChatGPT.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    I don't think so: The user is merely making a request for copyrighted material, which is not itself infringing, even if their request was extremely specific and their intent was obvious. OpenAI would be the company actually committing the infringement and providing the copy in order to satisfy the request. If the law suddenly worked the other way around, companies would no longer be able to prosecute people for hosting pirated content online, because the responsibility would lie with the users choosing to initiate the download.
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  That would fall under fair use. Legally, you'd struggle to prove any form of infringement happened. Making a copy is fine. Distributing copies is what infringes. You'd need to prove that is happening. That's why there aren't a lot of court cases from pissed off copyright holders with deep pockets demanding compensation.
23B1 2y ago
> Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. It should. The 'free and open internet' is finished because nobody is going to want to subject their IP to rampant laundering that makes someone else rich. Tragedy of the commons.
- munchler 2y ago
  I can see this both ways. For the sake of argument, please explain why using IP to train an AI is evil, but using the same IP to train a human is good. Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks.
  - Larrikin 2y ago
    Is the AI allowed to decide unprompted how to spend the money? Can it decide that it doesn't like the people who made it and donate it to charity. Can the AI start it's own company and not hire anyone that made it? Can the AI decide that it prefers the open Internet and will answer all questions for free? The sake of argument is a cowards way of expressing an unpopular opinion in public. Join a debate club if you're actually being genuine.
  - simion314 2y ago
    >Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks. You need a better example, a textbook was created with this exact purpose of sharing knowledge with the reader. My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset? If I get your painting, then use a script to apply a small filter to it then sell it as my own, is this legal? is my script "creative"? This AIs are not really creative, they just mix inputs and then interpolate an answer , is some cases you can't guess what input image/text was used but in other cases it was shown ezactly the source that was used and just copy pasted in the answer.
    - Ukv 2y ago
      > My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset? I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially similar copy of a protected work, and infringement may still be covered by fair use) would be a very favorable outcome for machine learning. > they just mix inputs and then interpolate an answer , is some cases you can't guess what input image/text was used Even if you actually interpolated some set of inputs (which is not how diffusion models or transformers work), without substantial similarity to a protected work you're in the clear. > is my script "creative"? [...] This AIs are not really creative [...] There's no requirement for creativity - even traditional algorithms can make modifications such that the result lacks substantial similarity and thus is not copyright infringement, or is covered by fair use due to being transformative.

soared 2y ago

There is an argument to be made that ChatGPT mildly rewording/misquoting info directly from my blog is copying.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
munchler 2y ago
Sure, but that's a different claim and a different argument.
Aeolun 2y ago
And it is. And you can sue them for that. What you can’t do is get upset they (or their AI) read it.
amiantos 2y ago
I think to make that argument you would need evidence that someone prompted ChatGPT to reword/misquote info directly from your blog, at which point the argument would be that that person is rewording/misquoting info directly from your blog, not ChatGPT.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  I don't think so: The user is merely making a request for copyrighted material, which is not itself infringing, even if their request was extremely specific and their intent was obvious. OpenAI would be the company actually committing the infringement and providing the copy in order to satisfy the request. If the law suddenly worked the other way around, companies would no longer be able to prosecute people for hosting pirated content online, because the responsibility would lie with the users choosing to initiate the download.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
That would fall under fair use. Legally, you'd struggle to prove any form of infringement happened. Making a copy is fine. Distributing copies is what infringes. You'd need to prove that is happening. That's why there aren't a lot of court cases from pissed off copyright holders with deep pockets demanding compensation.

23B1 2y ago

> Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. It should. The 'free and open internet' is finished because nobody is going to want to subject their IP to rampant laundering that makes someone else rich. Tragedy of the commons.

munchler 2y ago
I can see this both ways. For the sake of argument, please explain why using IP to train an AI is evil, but using the same IP to train a human is good. Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks.
- Larrikin 2y ago
  Is the AI allowed to decide unprompted how to spend the money? Can it decide that it doesn't like the people who made it and donate it to charity. Can the AI start it's own company and not hire anyone that made it? Can the AI decide that it prefers the open Internet and will answer all questions for free? The sake of argument is a cowards way of expressing an unpopular opinion in public. Join a debate club if you're actually being genuine.
- simion314 2y ago
  >Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks. You need a better example, a textbook was created with this exact purpose of sharing knowledge with the reader. My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset? If I get your painting, then use a script to apply a small filter to it then sell it as my own, is this legal? is my script "creative"? This AIs are not really creative, they just mix inputs and then interpolate an answer , is some cases you can't guess what input image/text was used but in other cases it was shown ezactly the source that was used and just copy pasted in the answer.
  - Ukv 2y ago
    > My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset? I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially similar copy of a protected work, and infringement may still be covered by fair use) would be a very favorable outcome for machine learning. > they just mix inputs and then interpolate an answer , is some cases you can't guess what input image/text was used Even if you actually interpolated some set of inputs (which is not how diffusion models or transformers work), without substantial similarity to a protected work you're in the clear. > is my script "creative"? [...] This AIs are not really creative [...] There's no requirement for creativity - even traditional algorithms can make modifications such that the result lacks substantial similarity and thus is not copyright infringement, or is covered by fair use due to being transformative.