|
|
|
|
|
by Terr_
895 days ago
|
|
> But what is that “some of the stuff”? If you work in copyright law, why ask random internet-commenters? The allegations and arguments are the legal filing [0], such as: > [4] Defendants’ GenAI tools can generate output that recites Times content verbatim [...] > [5] Defendants also [...] generate responses that contain verbatim excerpts and detailed
summaries of Times articles that are significantly longer and more detailed than those returned by traditional search engines. By providing Times content without The Times’s permission or authorization, Defendants’ tools undermine and damage The Times’s relationship with its readers and deprive The Times of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue. > [6] [T]here is nothing “transformative” about using The Times’s content without payment to create products that substitute for The Times and steal audiences away from it. Because the outputs of Defendants’ GenAI models compete with and closely mimic the inputs used to train them, copying Times works for that purpose is not fair use. [0] 1:23-cv-11195 - https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20... |
|
[5] Excerpts and Summaries are fair use, or should be.
[6] Is there a market for a chatbot that simply repeats a single news source? Its not really the purpose of the product.