3 ms·
Everybody seems to be focused on whether or not the OpenAI copied the data in training, but my understanding of copyright is that if a person when into a clean
by jay_kyburz 2y ago
Everybody seems to be focused on whether or not the OpenAI copied the data in training, but my understanding of copyright is that if a person when into a clean room and wrote an new article from scratch, without having read any NYT, that just so happened to be exactly the same as an existing NYT article, it would still be a copyright violation.
As soon as OpenAI repeats a set of words verbatim, it violates copyright.
The courts should examine how much damage an occasional verbatim regurgitation would damage NYTs business. (I would guess not much)
- nyssos 2y ago> but my understanding of copyright is that if a person when into a clean room and wrote an new article from scratch, without having read any NYT, that just so happened to be exactly the same as an existing NYT article, it would still be a copyright violation. It would not be. Independent creation is a complete defense against copyright infringement. Patents, however, do work this way.
- Maxatar 2y agoNo this is untrue. Independent creation is an affirmative defense against copyright infringement. You'd never convince a jury that you independently wrote the exact same article as a New York Times article, but in principle you can argue that you independently wrote say... a song, or even reimplemented the WIN32 API without ever having read or familiarized yourself with the original source code: https://github.com/wine-mirror/wine https://github.com/wine-mirror/wine https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-128/creating-around-copyright/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-128/creating-around-c...
- jay_kyburz 2y agoThanks for the clarification!