Sarah Silverman leads class-action lawsuit against ChatGPT creator

[Umbran]

It really is the reproduction and distribution of that material without the approval of the copyright holder or invocation of some kind of approved license, beyond fair use, that would constitute a copyright violation.

Technically it is reproduction OR distribution*. As in, reproducing in and of itself is a violation. Distribution is also a violation. If they are done by separate entities, both can be in trouble.

(*Or public performance. Or broadcasting. Or translation. Or adaptation.)

Copyright simply doesn't view a human experiencing the work as "reproducing" it. So, if someone violates copyright and reprints your book, you are in violation of copyright, but a person who reads that copy isn't in violation.

Copyright law just does not treat the human brain like a computer. And that's a good thing.

Edit to add: Really we should view copyright for what it is - a license. When you purchase media, you are really purchasing the content and a license that allows you to consume it in the normal manner for its type. You have a license to read that book, as many times as you like. You just don't have a license to do anything else with it. And yes, the license is transferrable to anyone in possession of the content covered by copyright.

 

[Kaodi]

I am not sure I like the idea of having a "license" to read a book. That feels like it is stretching the concept too far.

 

[MarkB]

I am not sure I like the idea of having a "license" to read a book. That feels like it is stretching the concept too far.

If you've bought a book in PDF form then you bought the license to that PDF. If you lose your local copy you have the right to download it again from the vendor, but you don't have the right to sell it on, even if you delete your copy of it.

 

[J.Quondam]

Cross-posting this here because it might be of interest to some following this topic:

US Copyright Office asking for comment on AI and Copyright​

.

 

[trappedslider]

Cross-posting this here because it might be of interest to some following this topic:

US Copyright Office asking for comment on AI and Copyright​

.

i'm sure the comments will range from :
"put the genie back in the bottle" to "be so restrictive as to make the AI useless"

Both of those views have been expressed in this thread, it will be interesting to see the final rule which i'm sure will make everyone un happy.

 

[J.Quondam]

i'm sure the comments will range from :
"put the genie back in the bottle" to "be so restrictive as to make the AI useless"

Both of those views have been expressed in this thread, it will be interesting to see the final rule which i'm sure will make everyone un happy.

Definitely. I think to say "There's a broad range of strong opinion on AI" would be an huge understatement.

 

[Ryujin]

The concept of not being able to copyright stuff generated by AI might well cool its use as long as any legislation also deals with the idea of having someone give the product a cursory polish, after the fact. No substantial input from human mind/hands = no exclusivity. Many companies would back off on that basis, alone.

 

[MoonSong]

The concept of not being able to copyright stuff generated by AI might well cool its use as long as any legislation also deals with the idea of having someone give the product a cursory polish, after the fact. No substantial input from human mind/hands = no exclusivity. Many companies would back off on that basis, alone.

It would be even better if copyright is assigned to the people whose work is the basis for the output. Did you use the public domain to train and then your drawing as an input? you get copyright. Did you scrape the web to train and use as an input? now all of those people co-own the image!

 

[trappedslider]

It would be even better if copyright is assigned to the people whose work is the basis for the output. Did you use the public domain to train and then your drawing as an input? you get copyright. Did you scrape the web to train and use as an input? now all of those people co-own the image!

And that's how it will become basically useless to the point of having no backers and fading away like pervious tech that had no backers.

Which is what the goal for some is.

 

[Scribe]

And that's how it will become basically useless to the point of having no backers and fading away like pervious tech that had no backers.

Which is what the goal for some is.

I mean, good?