A long form response to the concerns and comments and general principles many people had in the post about authors suing companies creating LLMs.

  • Ram@lemmy.ramram.ink
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    US Courts have already ruled in the past that human authorship is required for copyright. It’d be a logical conclusion as such that human authorship would also be required to justify a fair use defence. You providing a summary without any quotations would likely justify fair use - which is still copyright infringement, but a mere defence of said infringement. A machine or algorithm that cannot perform the act of creative authorship would thus not be exempted by the fair use defence.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      US Courts have already ruled in the past that human authorship is required for copyright

      Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Here, Silverman is the only one making a copyright claim. ChatGPT is not claiming a copyright on its output.

      It’d be a logical conclusion as such that human authorship would also be required to justify a fair use defence.

      I disagree. Nothing about “fair use” requires that the work be copyrighted on its own, or even copyrightable. It simply can’t be subject to the original copyright.

      A summary is a “transformative derivation”. Even if that summary cannot be copyrighted on its for some reason, it is not subject to the copyright of the original work.