> OpenAI, the ChatGPT maker committed to paying to train its models on AP news stories going back to 1985
Why are they paying or even asking for permission for training on data?
Why are they paying or even asking for permission for training on data?
There's a reasonable strong argument that crawling public pages for "indexing" (aka learning) is fair use based on the Google precedent and case law from ther early 2000s.
The argument is much less strong if those records aren't available.
DALL-E helpfully slaps a ShutterStock logo on some creations, for example. https://twitter.com/amoebadesign/status/1534542037814591490
Seems like you could train the AI to recognize the logos and edit them out?
No it isn't lol. a shutterstock logo is just more common ground for the model because of how often it will appear in the dataset.
They would say they are owed licensing fees regardless of whether the shutterstock logo appears in the output. The appearance of their logo in the output merely proves that the system's outputs are derived from their copyrighted images.
But upon the absence of the mark, shutterstock would argue that the provenance of the image WAS shutterstock?
I don’t think this is the salient feature of this phenomenon, but the proximity of these two arguments is interesting.
The internet has shaken the system but the content producers were able to adapt, albeit resulting in lower quality content.
However with the raise of AI, the thing completely shattered. Previously, someone reading the content and telling it to others wasn't a problem that breaks the compensation scheme for content producers but with ChatGPT and similar we have a situation where this "person" can tall about it to literally everyone. Some new compensation scheme is needed and OpenAI is probably trying o act as the "nice guy" to prevent the urgent need of a scheme that might limit their ability to consume other people's content.
This stuff is a legal minefield, as a for profit company building their core product it’s very difficult to argue each of these is fair use etc. Though I am sure that argument will be made, it’s risky when dealing with companies whose businesses model centers around IP.