Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors::OpenAI plans to defeat authors’ remaining claim at a “later stage” of the case.
So we can use ChatGPT for train others LLM, right?
Yes! …as long as you don’t agree to an agreement with OpenAI where you explicitly agree not to use OpenAI services for machine learning/AI.
-
Any agreement between OAI and you only binds you, and not people who get the data from you.
-
This clause may be preempted by copyright law. It’s complicated but it may not be possible to use contract law to create an alternative to copyright.
GPL and BSD and MIT and Apache licenses have entered the room.
To avoid misunderstandings that some might have. These are copyright licenses. When someone writes something that is the least bit creative, that text is under copyright. A short program/function where the code follows the technical necessities is public domain. Only individual expression gets copyright.
Without a license, you are not allowed to copy or modify a copyrighted text. These permissive licenses allow you to do things which would otherwise be illegal.
-
But it’s fair use !
Absolutely, and everyone does, but Sam wants you to stop.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
According to judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, authors behind three separate lawsuits—including Sarah Silverman, Michael Chabon, and Paul Tremblay—have failed to provide evidence supporting any of their claims except for direct copyright infringement.
Further, the authors cited examples of ChatGPT referencing their names, which would seem to suggest that some CMI remains in the training data.
Similarly, allegations of “fraudulent” unfair conduct—accusing OpenAI of “deceptively” designing ChatGPT to produce outputs that omit CMI—“rest on a violation of the DMCA,” Martínez-Olguín wrote.
The only claim under California’s unfair competition law that was allowed to proceed alleged that OpenAI used copyrighted works to train ChatGPT without authors’ permission.
To shore up the tossed copyright claims, authors would likely need to provide examples of ChatGPT outputs that are similar to their works, as well as evidence of OpenAI intentionally removing CMI to “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement,” Martínez-Olguín wrote.
Tremblay’s lawyers, Joseph Saveri, Bryan Clobes, and Matthew Butterick provided a statement to Ars confirming that an amended complaint is coming soon.
The original article contains 872 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
tiniest violin noises
