But what about when you're also reproducing the content on your own page like what's being done here?
With tricky I mean that only under very specific circumstances you would be infringing copyright laws, like maybe if the content was private in the first place; but then in that case you wouldn't be infringing copyright either, you would just be breaking privacy laws/terms.
I honestly can't think of an example where you would get in trouble by citing a piece of content that belongs to someone else, but I'm not closed to the possibility that it could happen.
It's the reverse of this. Any work public or not by default is all rights reserved to the owner. The fair use doctrine provides an exception from this if you meet specific criteria.
An extreme example, you cannot just upload a complete movie and just add "credit to disney".
> you wouldn't be infringing copyright either, you would just be breaking privacy laws/terms.
Maybe we're from different countries, but with US law it would be either under theft, the computer fraud/abuse act and/or copyright violations, there are no privacy laws applicable here unless we're talking about PII.
Extracting very specific examples from an article or blog is almost certainly going to fall under fair use. However I've seen several cases where it essentially just returns an entire article as the answer which would certainly be legally ambiguous.
In the words of ChatGPT:
> When determining the potential impact on the market for the original work, courts will consider whether the use of the copyrighted material is likely to harm the market for the original work. This may include whether the use of the copyrighted material would compete with the original work, such as if it is used as a substitute for the original work or if it would reduce the demand for the original work.
As such this is at least not clearly a fair use case. (And arguably quite possibly a not fair use case)