ChatGPT

577 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the ChatGPT community! This is a place for discussions, questions, and interactions with ChatGPT and its capabilities.

General discussions about ChatGPT, its usage, tips, and related topics are welcome. However, for technical support, bug reports, or feature requests, please direct them to the appropriate channels.

!chatgpt@lemdro.id

Rules

Stay on topic: All posts should be related to ChatGPT, its usage, and relevant discussions.
No support questions/bug reports: Please refrain from posting individual support questions or bug reports. This community is focused on general discussions rather than providing technical assistance.
Describe examples: When discussing or sharing examples of ChatGPT interactions, please provide proper context and explanations to facilitate meaningful discussions.
No self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion, spamming, or advertising of external products or services.
No inappropriate content: Do not post or request explicit, offensive, or inappropriate content. Keep the discussions respectful and inclusive.
No personal information: Do not share personal information, including real names, contact details, or any sensitive data.
No harmful instructions: Do not provide or request instructions for harmful activities, illegal actions, or unethical behaviour.
No solicitation: Do not solicit or engage in any form of solicitation, including but not limited to commercial, political, or donation requests.
No unauthorized use: Do not use ChatGPT to attempt unauthorized access, hacking, or any illegal activities.
Follow OpenAI usage policy: Adhere to the OpenAI platform usage policy and terms of service.

Thank you for being a part of the ChatGPT community and adhering to these rules!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

ijeff@lemdro.id

Sarah Silverman Sues ChatGPT Creator for Copyright Infringement (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 1 year ago by ijeff@lemdro.id to c/chatgpt@lemdro.id

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mhm true the difference would be that there is money to get by sueing a for-profit company. Copyright doesn't care about that.

[–] mikestevens@lemdro.id 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, sure, that's a cynical but also accurate description of the difference. The other, on a plaintiff level, is that they might be happy to turn a blind eye to student activity in the interests of 'helping' society in that way – whereas a for-profit company can and should be paying for anything they're directly profiting from.

Obviously, under law, a student should also have to pay. I'm merely saying that an IP owner might choose to let it slide. So, y'know, that's a difference too. If a more idealistic one. :)

[–] rdeets@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think a more appropriate comparison would be CliffNotes.

If they’re suing over summaries of their books and win, then the entire concept of the Cliff Notes company would be thrown into copyright liability, no?

AI does need to be regulated, but it needs to be regulated with common sense and forward-thinking. This lawsuit is not that.

[–] mikestevens@lemdro.id 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, I'm no copyright lawyer and no enthusiast of the topic, but your confidence suggests you might be?

I can't access the article anymore, but where you've said "if they're suing over summaries of their books" — aren't they suing over OpenAI using the entire text of their books to teach ChatGPT?

I've just done some quick googling, because your post led me to wonder, and it seems Cliffnotes is considered fair use because it summarises the books, using snippets of text for that purpose only.

Whereas, if OpenAI is using their books to teach their AI, they're effectively creating derivative works every time those learnings are used in a chat response — especially if the request is "write this in the style of Sarah Silverman".

Again I'm no lawyer, and maybe their case really isn't strong enough, but the above distinction seems like a reasonable starting point to me.

[–] rdeets@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's over the summaries of the books.

This is from The Verge's article:

In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights. Silverman’s Bedwetter is the first book shown being summarized by ChatGPT in the exhibits, while Golden’s book Ararat is also used as an example, as is Kadrey’s book Sandman Slim. The claim says the chatbot never bothered to “reproduce any of the copyright management information Plaintiffs included with their published works.”

If The Verge is correct and the lawsuit is over summaries, I don't see how the lawsuit would have any legal standing. But, then again, this SCOTUS hasn't really concerned itself with the legal standing requirement in lawsuits, so the lawsuit could hold but for the wrong reasons.

Under a sane legal system, the plaintiffs could only hope to get the summaries properly cited. But, we aren't exactly under a sane legal system.