AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Bohandas]

Remember Napster?

I certainly do, that's how long I've been grinding this ax. To this day I still won't buy anything by Metallica. I would say what I think of Metallica but I worry that I'd be banned from the forum if I did.

 

[Ryujin]

Well, there's several arguments here:

One, made by Sarah Silverman, and others, is that if the AI can accurately summarize or largely duplicate an original work, that is infringement. Basically, if you can give the generative AI a request to duplicate an existing work, the original persists in the system in sufficient form to be considered infringement. This argument isn't doing so hot in the courts at the moment, but some analysis I have read suggests that is because the topic is new, and that as more issues arise, this argument may gain more legs.

Another is a simple, but powerful, technical point that already has legal precedent - in order to use a work as training data, the original work must be copied as digital data in the AI training system! Done without permission, that, itself, is a violation of copyright, which prohibits duplication of covered works. While there is a long tradition of allowing individual consumers to create backups or copies for personal use, doing so for other purposes is another matter.

Remember Napster? This is what ultimately took down Napster. You can't make a digital copy of someone else's work and do whatever you want with it, just because you feel like it. Period.

Early Generative AI work leaned heavily on their being research, sliding in under the educational arm of Fair Use. But that argument ceases to hold as you open distribution of the result to the general public and commercial concerns.

You will note that the training sets used often avoid bodies of work controlled by major business concerns. Nobody has gone and scanned a bunch of Disney animated films and used them as training data, because Disney has the wherewithal to defend itself. Instead, training data is often lifted from the internet, and smaller artists who cannot mount a significant legal defense individually.

This strongly suggests that the folks getting this data know it is legally dicey.

You're making it sound like a group of lawyers, who could turn this into a class action, might stand to make a pretty penny. One artist, alone, is easy prey. A Class is a potential juggernaut.

 

[Umbran]

You're making it sound like a group of lawyers, who could turn this into a class action, might stand to make a pretty penny. One artist, alone, is easy prey. A Class is a potential juggernaut.

Could make a pretty penny, or make a big difference, yeah. But this is a new area, and anyone sensible would like to see how the case law starts to shake out before trying, right?

 

[Ryujin]

Could make a pretty penny, or make a big difference, yeah. But this is a new area, and anyone sensible would like to see how the case law starts to shake out before trying, right?

It might take a class action to get real case law.

 

[Umbran]

It might take a class action to get real case law.

Well, there's already real case law in the ruling that generative AI results cannot be covered by copyright. That has implications a lawyer can lean into. And Sarah Silverman's suit will likely have impications.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You're making it sound like a group of lawyers, who could turn this into a class action, might stand to make a pretty penny. One artist, alone, is easy prey. A Class is a potential juggernaut.

Yes, but also ... no.

Okay, one way to think about this is to view this in terms of extracting economic damage on the "AI Firms" (the companies making AI products). Viewed that way, a person might think that a class action is a great idea, because you can get a bunch of plaintiffs and leverage that.

But there's a flipside to this as well. Imagine you are the AI Firms. Negotiating all of those individual licensing agreements? That would be untenable. Instead, you actually want a class action! Why? Because it gives you a single entity to negotiate with. Sure, you have to do the payout upfront, and that sucks, but then ... that's it. And the class action will cover (and have a preclusive effect upon) EVERYONE ELSE.

That's it. You're done.

(FWIW, this is a similar tactic that was used by, inter alia, Spotify, so it's not unheard of.)

 

[Ryujin]

Yes, but also ... no.

Okay, one way to think about this is to view this in terms of extracting economic damage on the "AI Firms" (the companies making AI products). Viewed that way, a person might think that a class action is a great idea, because you can get a bunch of plaintiffs and leverage that.

But there's a flipside to this as well. Imagine you are the AI Firms. Negotiating all of those individual licensing agreements? That would be untenable. Instead, you actually want a class action! Why? Because it gives you a single entity to negotiate with. Sure, you have to do the payout upfront, and that sucks, but then ... that's it. And the class action will cover (and have a preclusive effect upon) EVERYONE ELSE.

That's it. You're done.

(FWIW, this is a similar tactic that was used by, inter alia, Spotify, so it's not unheard of.)

And this is why people need lawyers (you) and not guys who do occasional legal research (me).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And this is why people need lawyers (you) and not guys who do occasional legal research (me).

Meh.

Work is the scourge of the drinking class.

 

[trappedslider]

nvm

 

[Ryujin]

Meh.

Work is the scourge of the drinking class.

I picked the wrong day to give up drinking.