[nefrix]

As i mentioned in an earlier comment, it is very easy to make ChatGPT post paragraphs from books, by tricking it. They added some kind of exceptions to not show copyrighted content, but still, it is not impossible to reproduce an exact text. From my point of view this is a clear copyright infringement case.

[almatabata]

> post paragraphs from books, by tricking it

Posting individual paragraphs verbatim is still ok. An individual paragraph(s) is not a replacement for the whole book. Websites post extracts of books all the time (like the google example in the article), that is not enough of a bar for copyright infringement.

[edgyquant]

They clearly don’t think so, if I ask it to give me the first few paragraphs of the first Harry Potter it starts to give a dump and then fails saying it can’t give that info. Clearly it’s trained on the book and its creators belief outputting this is iffy.

[almatabata]

> They clearly don’t think so

Yes the plaintiff's disagree but just because they disagree does not make them right. I simply explained why, even if it outputs who whole paragraphs of the copyrighted work, it can still be considered as free use. If I cite a paragraph of an article in my youtube video, I can claim fair use.

I do not know if the judge will see it this way of course and I am not a lawyer.

[nefrix]

Your right, but what if I type prompts in order to make ChatGPT to show me the full book, or at least big chunks of it? You agree that right now it is possible this, and they didn’t manage how to stop it doing that, right?

[almatabata]

The moment OpenAI learns of the loophole they will patch it. Just like youtube takes down infringing video, OpenAI has to keep the bot from regurgitating the whole work.

OpenAI's business is not based on regurgitating the work. It is based on providing output derivated from those works. No buys an OpenAI subscription to get the AI to give you an existing book. People buy it to have OpenAI generate the next original book.

[nefrix]

I get your point. I am reflecting on it, cause in a way it tends to be stronger than mine, specialty discussing about written work (books or in the example of the article, NYT articles)

But what about the images. The italian plumber who looks very much like SuperMario mentioned in the article. How would a judge not punish a company selling visual representations of a character that is copyright owned by someone else?

[almatabata]

> But what about the images. The italian plumber who looks very much like SuperMario

That looks indeed like a case where any regurgitation becomes a problem in my opinion. I think the closest thing to this would be Fan-art. If I draw a picture of Mario for fun and post it online, it remains fair use as long as its not commercial or used for promoting a product (from my limited understanding). In the OpenAI case they sell subscriptions to their service. You can therefore make the case that they are selling Fan-art for profit.

This leads me to think companies that own this kind IP have a more solid case against OpenAI. It is entirely possible that New York Times loses the lawsuit but Nintendo wins if they sue.

[kromem]

You'd be unable to do so.

[ninjasaid13]

ChatGPT would hallucinate it.