In this case the correct analogy would be you brought a stolen painting into your house, looked at it for a while, and then produced your derivative work.
Surely you see the issue here? Receiving stolen property?
Numerous questions of law or fact common to each Class arise from Defendants’ conduct:
whether ChatGPT itself is an infringing derivative work based on Plaintiffs’ copyrighted books;
whether the text outputs of ChatGPT are infringing derivative works based on Plaintiffs’ copyrighted books;
It's not a simple case of "you used our copyrighted materials", it's "you're infringing on our copyright by producing works derived from materials that you used."
That assumption is the reason why it's a shady argument for infringement. There's other ways to get a summary of a book than reading it, like asking a friend who's read it to give a summary
>In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights.