as far as the courts are concerned if it’s on the internet and it’s not behind a paywall or password then it’s publicly available information.
Er… no. That’s not in the slightest bit true.
Comment on Asking ChatGPT to Repeat Words ‘Forever’ Is Now a Terms of Service Violation
echodot@feddit.uk 11 months agoIt’s a hugely grey area but as far as the courts are concerned if it’s on the internet and it’s not behind a paywall then it’s publicly available information.
I could write a script to just visit loads of web pages and scrape the text contents of those pages and drop them into a big huge text file essentially that’s exactly what they did.
If those web pages are human accessible for free then I can’t see how they could be considered anything other than public domain information in which case you explicitly don’t need to ask the permission.
merc@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
echodot@feddit.uk 11 months ago
That was the whole reason that Reddit debacle whole happened they wanted to stop the scraping of content so that they could sell it. Before that they were just taking it for free and there was no problem
MadBigote@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You can go to your closest library and do the exact same thing: copy all books by hand, or whatever. Of you then use that information to make a product you sell, then you’re in trouble, as the books are still protected by copyright, even when they’re publicly available.
echodot@feddit.uk 11 months ago
Only if I tried to sell the works as my own I’ve taken plenty of copies of notes for my own personal use
SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 11 months ago
And open ai is not personal use?
OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Google provides sample text for every site that comes up in the results, and they put ads on the page too. If it’s publicly available we are well past at least a portion being fair use.
DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
A portion is legally protected. ALL data, not so much. Court cases on going.
Silentiea@lemm.ee 11 months ago
But Google displays the relevant portion! How could it do that without scraping and internally seeing all of it?
threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
I don’t think that’s the case. A photographer can post pictures on their website for free, but that doesn’t make it legal for anyone to slap the pictures on t-shirts and sell them.
Rodeo@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Because that becomes distribution.
Which is the crux of this issue: using the data for training was probably legal use under copyright, but if the AI begins to share training data that is distribution, and that is definitely illegal.
RQG@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It wasn’t. It is commercial use to train and sell a programm with it and that is regulated differently than private use. The data is still 1 to 1 part of the product. In fact this instance of chatGPT being able to output training data means the data is still there unchanged.
If training AI with text is made legally independent of the license of said text then by the same logic programming code and text can no longer be protected by it at all.
CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
First of all no: Training a model and selling the model is demonstrably equivalent to re-distributing the raw data.
Secondly: What about all the copyleft work in there? That work is specifically licensed such that nobody can use the work to create a non-free derivative, which is exactly what openAI has done.
Rodeo@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Copyleft is the only valid argument here. Everything else falls under fair use as it is a derivative work.