Comment by terminalshort
3 months ago
They infringed nothing. Two judges have already ruled that training on copyrighted data is fair use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr...
3 months ago
They infringed nothing. Two judges have already ruled that training on copyrighted data is fair use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr...
But displaying regurgitations of very similar content may not be fair use. Fair use is a very delicate affair. One factor is whether the modified work poses as a market replacement for the original work.
The issue is, in part, a concern that ChatGPT responses are often just simple derivations of the original content in ways that wouldn’t be considered fair use.
Damn, you'd think OpenAI would have made this argument! Maybe there's something you're missing if this didn't save the day for them.
No I wouldn't since this is discovery. Maybe there's something you're missing here.
Primarily you seem to be missing the fact that the NYT case is about outputs, not just the training.
5 replies →
Two idiot judges.
Agreed
[flagged]