Comment

Comment on George R.R. Martin and other authors sue OpenAI for copyright infringement

The difference is that you’re trying to sue someone based on what could happen. That’s like sueing some random author because they read your book and could potentially make a story that would be a copy of it.

LLM’d are trained on writings in the language and understand how to structure sentences based on their training data. Do AI models plagiarize anymore than someone using their understanding of the English language is plagiarizing when they construct a brand new sentence. After all, we learn how to write by reading the language and learning the rules, is the training data we read when we were kids being infringed whenever we write about similar topics?

When someone uses AI to plagiarize you sue them into eternity for all I care, but no one seems concerned with the implications of trying to a sue someone/something because they trained an intelligence by letting it read publicly available written works. Reading and learning isn’t allowed because you could maybe one day possibly use that information to break copyright law.

source

Sort:hotnew top

abbotsbury@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

Do AI models plagiarize anymore than someone using their understanding of the English language is plagiarizing when they construct a brand new sentence?

Yes

source
- c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Damn, debate over I guess.
  
  source
- lloram239@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  These replies would be a lot more valuable if you’d actually come up with some examples.
  
  source
Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I see this more like suing a musician for using a sample of your recording or a certain amount of notes or lyrics from your song without your consent. The musician created a new work but it was based on your previous songs. I'm sure if a publisher asked ChatGBT to produce a GRRM-like novel, it would create a plagiarism-lite mash up of his works that were used as writing samples, using pieces of his plots and characters, maybe even quoting directly. Sampling GRRM's writing, in other words.

source
- Fosheze@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Except doing all of that is perfectly legal. With music it’s called a remix or a cover. With stories it’s called fanfic.
  
  If the AI is exactly replicating an artists works then that is copyright infringment without a doubt. But the AI isn’t doing that and it likely isn’t even capable of doing that.
  
  source
  - Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    But wouldn't the person who made the remix/cover or fanfic have to pay if they made money off of their work? Don't they need permission of the writer to sell that work? That is what I have always known, unless the original work is in the public domain.
    
    source
    Gutless2615@ttrpg.network ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    No. Remixes are a fair use.
    
    source
    Fosheze@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Nope. Those are all transformative works and are fair use. The remix, cover, or fanfic are all considered new works as far as copyright is concerned and the writer of them can do whatever they want with them including sell them. People get their fanfics published all the time they just usually don’t sell well. People make covers of songs and sell them all the time. I can think of several youtube channels that only do exactly that. Anyone can just go record themselves playing Wonderwall and try to sell it because them playing that song is a unique work. I think trademarked stuff is more restricted on what you can do with it but I’m not sure on that.
    
    AI is also even more limited in regards to transformative works than humans because you can’t copyright the direct output of an AI. So if, for example, you made an AI output a cover of a song you could still do whatever you want with it but you couldn’t own the rights to it. Anyone else could also take it and profit off of it. The only way to copyright AI output is to create a transformative work based on that output. You can use the AI output to create a new work but you can’t just call the AI output your work. In my opinion that’s exactly where the law should be. You can use AI as a creative tool but you can’t just have one generate every possible picture of something and copyright them all.
    
    source
snooggums@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Suing anyone for copyright infringement based on current infringement always includes justification that includes current and future potential losses. You don't necessarily get paid for the potential losses, but they are still justification for them to stop infringing right now.

source
- c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  There is no current infringement unless they’ve discovered some knockoff series that was created with AI and is being used for profit. That’s what I’m saying.
  
  source
  - snooggums@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The copyright holders did not give OpenAI permission to copy their text into OpenAI, whether as direct text or an abstracted copy of the text, for commercial purposes.
    
    source
    uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    That isn’t infringement. Any more than transformative work is.
    
    source
    lloram239@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    An “abstract copy” of a text is perfectly legal, e.g. Wikipedia Plot synopsis. Even verbatim copies can be legal.
    
    Google had a lawsuit about this when they were doing their book scanning project and they won. It’s fair use. And that was copying, word for word, GPT just gather some vague ideas of the work, it doesn’t store or has access to actual copies.
    
    source