If I memorize a book, am I guilty of copyright infringement?
Yes if you write it back out again.
If you just write it for yourself, then no.
Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
31–40 of 126 posts
Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
#32Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
#33I have a more general question. Say I read a science fiction book which has descriptions of some futuristic technologies. I get inspired by it and spend lot of my time and energy becoming an expert in the required engineering and technologies and invent a machine/process to make that futuristic technology a reality. If I attempt to commercialize my work, can I get sued for copyright infringement by the author(s) of t…
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, such as a series of words or chords. You’d be fine. Patents protect the implementation of an idea, so you’d be fine. There is no IP protection for the abstract idea of doing something, and that is as it should be.
Does that mean you could rewrite, say, Harry Potter from scratch without violating copyright?
Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
#34I think the real issue here is that we’re trying to apply laws made by humans for humans to something entirely new and not well understood: LLMs.
This won’t be something we’ll cleanly solve using current regulation.
Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah agreed, and also the general direction this is heading in feels a bit strange to me - we can debate the merits of current copyright law - but the indisputable fact is that the training material came from *pirated* copies of these author’s copyrighted works. If we are to believe the much used arguments against piracy that we’ve been fed over the last 30+ years (mainly by deep pocketed media companies) then piracy…
> Otherwise WTF have we been prosecuting individuals for all these years for pirating movies and music etc? We don't. Nobody got prosecuted for downloading movies. Because that isn't illegal. Whats illegal is distributing copies to other people. Its OK though. Its a common misconception that internet piracy is illegal. Only the distribution part has ever been successfully prosecuted. > They didn’t do that. They used…
I imagine you'd still be liable as some sort of accomplice? Unless you had a reasonable belief that you obtained a legal copy, or had the copy forced onto you somehow.
Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
#36I think the real issue here is that we’re trying to apply laws made by humans for humans to something entirely new and not well understood: LLMs. This won’t be something we’ll cleanly solve using current regulation.
I agree, but of course national legislation is like impossible now due to a certain obstructionist political party.
Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, such as a series of words or chords. You’d be fine. Patents protect the implementation of an idea, so you’d be fine. There is no IP protection for the abstract idea of doing something, and that is as it should be.
Does that mean you could rewrite, say, Harry Potter from scratch without violating copyright?
Yes, but unless you change names it would be a trademark violation.
Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
#38Though I think that training data is totally a violation of copyright, OpenAI really needs to win. Copyright has been unreasonably extended to the point where it's untenable and if we needed to track down rights holders and negotiate 'training rights' we'd ensure there would be no open models or competition going forward. The rights holders are going to lose this one and it's probably for the better.
> Though I think that training data is totally a violation of copyright, OpenAI really needs to win.
It will have 2 consequences:
1. No reliable law.
2. No win for humans. Only big corps (openai and corporations behind it) wins.
Is it really what we all deserve?
Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
#39[dead]
Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Though I think that training data is totally a violation of copyright, OpenAI really needs to win. I’d argue that that’s not really how the law is supposed to work.
Ultimately it's gonna come down to new legislation, and there is just absolutely no chance of "big tech gets to exploit every copyrighted work on the planet for free". Definitely not in the US or Europe. Big media companies don't want that, zillions of small creators don't want that, the public at large has no great affection for giant tech companies getting even more power.
> Big media companies don't want that
Big Media isn't worried about you drawing Shrek or Donald Duck at home by hand or by GPT. They won't like you distributing it profitably, but they already have tools against that. They'll also like few billions coming their way but that everyone likes.
Small Creator are worried about getting the next gig as AI may take away low end of the jobs, and they are not worried about copyright implications of the LLMs.
General Public doesn't like Tech companies but loves the products they make, nobody stopped using early Youtube or Telegram because there was piracy happening.