OpenAI admits that it's 'impossible' to create ChatGPT-like tools without using copyright material, amid court battles over intellectual property t...

[Windows Central]

OpenAI is in the middle of legal battles over bad copyright practices. The company admits that it relies on copyrighted material to train its models, but highlights that the law doesn't restrict this.

OpenAI admits that it's 'impossible' to create ChatGPT-like tools without using copyright material, amid court battles over intellectual property t... : Read more

 

[naddy69]

Copyright laws are some of the clearest, easiest to enforce laws on the books. You simply can't use/reprint/distribute copyrighted material without the written consent of and/or paying the copyright holder. Period.

It is important to note that it is up to the copyright holder to defend the copyright. If a copyright holder knowingly lets someone use the material without written consent and/or payment, the copyrighted material becomes public domain and is no longer copyrighted.

This is why we are seeing these lawsuits. I guarantee you that more will come.

"OpenAI recently admitted that it's literally "impossible" to create tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material from the internet"

Then you better re-think your business model. All of this "AI" junk is going to be seriously derailed by this. "Fair Use" does not mean using any amount - that YOU deem acceptable - of copyrighted material for free. The copyright holders determine this, not you. You will HAVE to pay up.

That's the whole purpose of copyrights. It is - literally - the Right To Copy.

Which means you will have to charge everyone that uses "AI", every time they use it. Or you will have to NOT include copyrighted material from everyone who sues you. And if you are not paying the copyright holders, the number of people suing you is only going to grow.

"Legally, copyright law does not forbid training," OpenAI added.

Really? What if schools used illegally copied books for "training" students? Do you really think they could get away with that? The schools BUY the required books and lend them to the students. In college, each student BUYS the required books.

In neither case are the students provided free, bootleg copies by the school/college. The copyright holders ARE PAID for their copyrighted materials. Period.

Otherwise it does not get used by the school/college. Period.

 

[taynjack]

Copyright laws are some of the clearest, easiest to enforce laws on the books. You simply can't use/reprint/distribute copyrighted material without the written consent of and/or paying the copyright holder. Period.

It is important to note that it is up to the copyright holder to defend the copyright. If a copyright holder knowingly lets someone use the material without written consent and/or payment, the copyrighted material becomes public domain and is no longer copyrighted.

This is why we are seeing these lawsuits. I guarantee you that more will come.

"OpenAI recently admitted that it's literally "impossible" to create tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material from the internet"

Then you better re-think your business model. All of this "AI" junk is going to be seriously derailed by this. "Fair Use" does not mean using any amount - that YOU deem acceptable - of copyrighted material for free. The copyright holders determine this, not you. You will HAVE to pay up.

That's the whole purpose of copyrights. It is - literally - the Right To Copy.

Which means you will have to charge everyone that uses "AI", every time they use it. Or you will have to NOT include copyrighted material from everyone who sues you. And if you are not paying the copyright holders, the number of people suing you is only going to grow.

"Legally, copyright law does not forbid training," OpenAI added.

Really? What if schools used illegally copied books for "training" students? Do you really think they could get away with that? The schools BUY the required books and lend them to the students. In college, each student BUYS the required books.

In neither case are the students provided free, bootleg copies by the school/college. The copyright holders ARE PAID for their copyrighted materials. Period.

Otherwise it does not get used by the school/college. Period.

The part that makes this so interesting to me is, do you read something on the internet then request permission to use the information someone has put in their free blogpost, free instagram, free twitter, or free website? After reading multiple websites about say a medical condition you have, do you write a letter and ask the publisher if it is okay to use their suggested mode of treatment? Or after reviewing several fancy websites, does a person then get citations from every website owner where they found a cool feature they like and want to use in a similar way on their own website? Of course not, no one does this.

Anyone can literally read from several websites, review and revise that information, and add their perspective on their own website with their own perspective on the subject matter. Of course, they have to provide citations for any direct quotes, they can't copy and paste images or creative works of others without permission, and they can't name their products with the same name as another existing product. Yet, anyone can and almost everyone does, review other people's work at the very least supported by searches across the internet then adapt and repackage that information into their own creations. Artists do this all the time. Web and App developers as well as practically any designer scours the internet for ideas and trends as well as research their competition to then provide something better. Just look at automobiles that all have many similar features and design similarities. For all of us there are quotes, anecdotes, solutions and principles that I'm certain we have all learned on the internet, that we couldn't possibly attribute to the original author(s) that taught us the subject matter. We likely all use this information to be better at our jobs which means we benefit monetarily from the information, without citation, that is out there for free and on the internet.

This, I believe, is roughly the grey area that Openai is attributing their use of the internet to train A.I. The A.I. scours the internet for information that is widely available for free, then when someone asks it's opinion, it takes all that information it has studied and spits out its interpretation. Take the A.I. summary in Amazon reviews. They could pay humans to read all the reviews of a product and then produce a summary. No one would bat an eye at this. (Of course, Amazon owns its reviews, so this is a terrible example.) Anyone can do this, but obviously not to the extreme leap in power of A.I. Is it right? Is it wrong? I'm glad I'm not the one responsible for figuring out where that line is.