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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    281 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
      151 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.