Posted on 08/06/2024 7:09:16 AM PDT by EBH
OpenAI is reportedly facing another lawsuit on its supposed artificial intelligence training methods, this time by YouTuber David Millette.
Lawyers for David Millette, a YouTube user from Massachusetts, claim in a lawsuit filed on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that OpenAI secretly transcribed videos from Millette and other creators to train the models for their AI-powered chatbot platform, ChatGPT, and other generative AI tools and products.
The complaint reportedly alleges that OpenAI significantly benefited from the creators' work by gathering this data, while also infringing copyright law and YouTube's terms of service which forbid using videos for apps not connected to its platform.
OpenAI improved the value of its products for users by enhancing their language models with the plaintiffs' videos. Subscribers who purchased access to these products benefited from this improvement, while the plaintiffs and Class members did not receive any compensation, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit claims that OpenAI's keeping of the benefits provided by the plaintiff and potential class members is unfair and unjust, and they must be required to provide restitution.
The suggested class action lawsuit alleges a demand for unjust enrichment or repayment, as well as a legal claim for unfair competition according to California regulations.
Apart from seeking class certification, the complaint also requests damages, fair monetary relief, injunction relief, reasonable attorney fees, and costs. OpenAI did not reply promptly to a request for comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at techtimes.com ...
The concern for copywrite infringement has been lingering in the background now for quite a while. One of the big notes of interest is several platforms require a Content Creator divulge if the information or images are AI generated and therefore not original works. But this lawsuit raises the question does AI have the "right" to use a Creators original work or data?
Just as some publishers cannot be used on FR, is that same or similar standard applicable to a data and information harvesting computer? And worse, often without attribution or financial payment.
fair use of public data, sorry.
We do have an example of technology in the past that was never accepted. Lots of investment and it worked.
Anyone remember what it was?
SST
Not always and not without attribution on copywrited works. And the question becomes how much is used as well. Ever get the excerpt warning while posting on FR> there’s a reason for that.
A computer AI is allowed to learn the same way a human does by looking at all available public information.
Then why wouldn’t these same or similar rules/laws apply to them? It isn’t the “learning” the information it is then how it is being used and profiting from it.
“The complaint reportedly alleges that OpenAI significantly benefited from the creators’ work by gathering this data, while also infringing copyright law and YouTube’s terms of service which forbid using videos for apps not connected to its platform.
OpenAI improved the value of its products for users by enhancing their language models with the plaintiffs’ videos. Subscribers who purchased access to these products benefited from this improvement, while the plaintiffs and Class members did not receive any compensation, according to the complaint.”
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/post
Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
This part is really important as OpenAI is not connected to YouTube. In scraping the content creators transcript and video could result in said content creator getting throw off the platform through no fault or choice of their own.
“A computer AI is allowed to learn the same way a human does by looking at all available public information.”
This is a strong point. If I read 30 books and then write an essay on their relation to the US civil war, do I owe the book authors money?
Under current copyright law, I do not.
You paid to read, or your library paid…
But if you went to an art gallery and SERRUPTITOUSLY photographed the art pieces and then put out a coffee book containing the images, do you owe the artist money?
exactly
Used to be the answer to that would be “no”, IF you changed the images substantially enough for them to be considered a different and original work when you release them.
However, after the Supreme Court ruled against the Andy Warhol Foundation for doing that kind of thing with someone’s copyrighted photograph, I think the answer now is probably “yes”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.