OpenAI accuses New York Times of paying someone to "hack" ChatGPT

[BogdanR]

Some of the errors on your part are:
(1) That paywalled material is "more" copyrighted than non-paywalled material.
(2) That OpenAI was directly accessing paywalled material.
(3) That opinion pieces are more copyrighted than news stories.
(4) That Fair Use is some sort of "obscure technicality".
(5) That a copyright owner can "opt out" of fair use exclusions.
(6) Confusing the "proper citations" that relate to plagiarism with an infringement claim.
(7) That training an algorithm on copyrighted material constitutes a derivative work.

The first six are absurd, contradictory, and/or easily disproven. As for the seventh, if I scan copyrighted stories from any source -- the NYTimes, Wikipedia, best-selling novels, etc -- to build a database of word usage counts or discover newly coined words or words which are changing in meaning -- that's not a derivative work. Period. Lexicographers have been doing this for centuries to write their dictionaries. If I scan the same material to extract factual data, or even the prevalence of certain opinions or ideas -- that's not a derivative work either.


You're just digging your hole deeper here. You've misunderstood your own reference. Many commercial usages are non-infringing, and many non-commercial usages ARE infringing. Commercial status is merely one factor in a complex multi-prong infringement test.

All spoken like a true internet lawyer, misconstrued and taken out of context. All for the sake of arguing, no real substance.

As for the explanation for the 7th, you’re grasping at straws.

Go ahead, try to make money modifying someone else’s copyrighted work without an agreement. See how that will turn out.

The last word in this NYT vs Open AI is with neither of us, but with the judge on the actual case. It is likely the decision will be more nuanced but then again, chances are Open AI will settle out of court.

I have nothing more to add here I’m out.

Go on. Have the last word. I have an actual life to live.

 

[Endymio]

Go ahead, try to make money modifying someone else’s copyrighted work without an agreement. See how that will turn out.

I've already given you a prime example: the Common Crawl dataset, which contains tens of millions of copyrighted works, yet has been used by hundreds of commercial projects, including machine learning. This is why the NY Times complaint focuses not on the "training" of OpenAI algorithms, but rather the cases of "verbatim and near-verbatim" duplication of their material in ChatGPT output.

There are literally tens of thousands of other examples of modified material being used for commercial purposes under fair use. Here's one:

"...The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the use of the Barbie trademark in a parody film titled "Barbie Girl" by the music group Aqua was a fair use. The court held that unauthorized use of the trademark did not harm the value of the mark....."

Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F. 3d 792 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2003 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Courts upheld an even more infringing case in Mattel vs. Walking Mountain Productions:

"... In the action before us, Plaintiff Mattel Corporation asks us to prohibit Defendant artist Thomas Forsythe from producing and selling photographs containing Mattel's "Barbie" doll. Most of Forsythe's photos portray a nude Barbie in danger of being attacked by vintage household appliances....we hold that Forsythe's work constitutes fair use under § 107's exception. "

Here's another:

"...Paintiff Jaime Keeling is the author and owner of registered copyrights in the script for “Point Break LIVE!”, a stage play parodying the 1991 Keanu Reeves-Patrick Swayze film “Point Break.” Keeling’s copyrights are for additions and modifications to “Point Break.” She does not hold a copyright or license for the original motion picture and did not obtain permission from the copyright holder of “Point Break” before registering her own copyrights in her parody....."

Keeling v. Hars | Loeb & Loeb LLP

www.loeb.com

 

[BogdanR]

I've already given you a prime example: the Common Crawl dataset, which contains tens of millions of copyrighted works, yet has been used by hundreds of commercial projects, including machine learning. This is why the NY Times complaint focuses not on the "training" of OpenAI algorithms, but rather the cases of "verbatim and near-verbatim" duplication of their material in ChatGPT output.

There are literally tens of thousands of other examples of modified material being used for commercial purposes under fair use. Here's one:

"...The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the use of the Barbie trademark in a parody film titled "Barbie Girl" by the music group Aqua was a fair use. The court held that unauthorized use of the trademark did not harm the value of the mark....."

Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F. 3d 792 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2003 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Courts upheld an even more infringing case in Mattel vs. Walking Mountain Productions:

"... In the action before us, Plaintiff Mattel Corporation asks us to prohibit Defendant artist Thomas Forsythe from producing and selling photographs containing Mattel's "Barbie" doll. Most of Forsythe's photos portray a nude Barbie in danger of being attacked by vintage household appliances....we hold that Forsythe's work constitutes fair use under § 107's exception. "

Here's another:

"...Paintiff Jaime Keeling is the author and owner of registered copyrights in the script for “Point Break LIVE!”, a stage play parodying the 1991 Keanu Reeves-Patrick Swayze film “Point Break.” Keeling’s copyrights are for additions and modifications to “Point Break.” She does not hold a copyright or license for the original motion picture and did not obtain permission from the copyright holder of “Point Break” before registering her own copyrights in her parody....."

Keeling v. Hars | Loeb & Loeb LLP

www.loeb.com

Yea, sure, parody, the best example of fair use and something actually covered in the law. None of the above actually applies to NYT vs Open AI case and you know that, but you just need to win an internet argument regardless how, I understand.

So here: you win. Be at peace!

P.S.
The verdict is with the judge in this particular case and you will “trully” “win” if the ruling is the one you think it is going to be. Until then I’m out of this thread.

 

[Endymio]

Yea, sure, parody, the best example of fair use and something actually covered in the law. None of the above actually applies to NYT vs Open AI case

Ah, but it certainly does. The legal term you're searching for here is "transformative", and their running NYT articles through their algorithms is clearly even more transformative than a parody treatment. That is, IF their allegations are true.

However, if the NYTimes is correct, that an ordinary user can in normal operation retrieve "verbatim or near-verbatim" copyrighted articles, then they as plaintiffs will almost certainly prevail. Again: it's not about the inputs to the algorithm (clearly covered by fair use) but the outputs from ChatGPT.