OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series::A new research paper laid out ways in which AI developers should try and avoid showing LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Exactly. If I write some Loony toons fan fiction, Warner doesn’t own that. This ridiculous view of copyright (that’s not being challenged in the public discourse) needs to be confronted.

    • OkToBeTakei@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      that’s not exactly what’s in dispute— the prodcut that LLMs produce. That would probably be ruled as a derivative work under the DMCA’s “Fair Use” clause, and, therefore, public domain.

      the issue at hand is that the company accessed the copyrighted material without paying for it and is now using that training to earn more money without fair compensation.

      these language models or even proper AI can’t create original creative works the way a human can. The best it can do it create a pastiche or composition that simulates originality but is really just a jumble of recycled ideas that it’s been trained on. There’s a fair argument to be made that the owners of the copyrights of those pesos works are entitled to fair compensation, especially since AI is a tool used by a company to churn out profit off the work of others.

    • wmassingham@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They can own it, actually. If you use the characters of Bugs Bunny, etc., or the setting (do they have a canonical setting?) then Warner does own the rights to the material you’re using.

      For example, see how the original Winnie the Pooh material just entered public domain, but the subsequent Disney versions have not. You can use the original stuff (see the recent horror movie for an example of legal use) but not the later material like Tigger or Pooh in a red shirt.

      Now if your work is satire or parody, then you can argue that it’s fair use. But generally, most companies don’t care about fan fiction because it doesn’t compete with their sales. If you publish your Harry Potter fan fiction on Livejournal, it wouldn’t be worth the money to pay the lawyers to take it down. But if you publish your Larry Cotter and the Wizard’s Rock story on Amazon, they’ll take it down because now it’s a competing product.

        • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Can’t but theyre pretty open on how they trained the model, so like almost admitted guilt (though they werent hosting the pirated content, its still out there and would be trained on). Cause unless they trained it on a paid Netflix account, there’s no way to get it legally.

          Idk where this lands legally, but I’d assume not in their favour