|
|
|
|
|
|
by simion314
514 days ago
|
|
|
>I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially similar copy of a protected work, and infringement may still be covered by fair use) would be a very favorable outcome for machine learning. Agree. copyright is clear,
so if I can make ChatGPT output copyrighted material then Open AI should pay me correct? Or you will claim that this is rare, a mistake and we should forgive OpenAI while a human would have had to pay damages. |
|
|
If by "make" you mean you're coaxing it into outputting your work, it'd be difficult to allege damages. If you show it's regurgitating your registered work to normal users, and it's not covered by fair use factors (e.g: it's outputting a significant portion of your work, in a non-transformative manner, and this is negatively impacting the market for that work), then you'd have a good case to bring.
> Or you will claim that this is rare, a mistake and we should forgive OpenAI
Rarity will affect damages, but they wouldn't be off the hook if such a situation does happen. To my knowledge no safe harbor applies here, given it's their own bot and not human users.