[dd82]

It is exactly the same. You can absoutely be sued for copyright infringement in your example.

https://www.adobe.com/legal/dmca.html

Just because you produce an infringing work doesn't mean it will be discovered and then a legal case made.

[m-s-y]

Correct. But the person using the software is charged. Not the software itself. The NYT is trying to push liability onto the software (ChatGPT-cannot be sued) instead of the software’s users (you and me-can be sued). I feel this is the correct interpretation.

[tumult]

No. They are suing the people who made the software. They are not suing the software. You can't sue software. Software isn't a person.

[filoleg]

This is just pedantry.

Would NYT be suing Adobe (the people who made the software), if one of their users utilized Photoshop to produce an image that violates copyright? I don’t think so.

[tumult]

No. They would sue Adobe if Adobe put images that violate copyright into Photoshop and let users insert them from a dropdown menu. Your comparison is incorrect and bad.

[filoleg]

The comment I replied to was saying “they are suing the people who made the software,” nothing about “putting images” or publishing them or anything like that.

My comparison addresses exactly that, as Adobe is the company that made the software (in this specific example, Photoshop).

You cannot retroactively switch up your argument to something entirely different and then claim that my comparison was incorrect and bad.

[tumult]

I've replied consistently to everyone in this thread, to the point of monotony. I haven't switched anything. I've replied so consistently and repetitively, with the same statements, that it's actually grating. This is the second time someone has tried the "you switched what you've said" argument tactic, even though it's very clear the only thing I've talked about is liability of the creators of the software, not the software itself. You have either not fully read my comment that you are replying to, or are misunderstanding it thoroughly enough in order to pretend that I've said the opposite of what I've said.

I don't owe you any further replies, but I wanted to make this clear to anyone else skimming the thread.