The main topic of the article is the backlash against AI companies that use unauthorized creative work to train their models.
Key points:
1. The controversy surrounding Prosecraft, a linguistic analysis site that used scraped data from pirated books without permission.
2. The debate over fair use and copyright infringement in relation to AI projects.
3. The growing concern among writers and artists about the use of generative AI tools to replace human creative work and the push for individual control over how their work is used.
Main topic: The New York Times may sue OpenAI for scraping its articles and images to train AI models.
Key points:
1. The New York Times is considering a lawsuit to protect its intellectual property rights.
2. OpenAI could face devastating consequences, including the destruction of ChatGPT's dataset.
3. Fines of up to $150,000 per infringing piece of content could be imposed on OpenAI.
Main topic: Copyright protection for works created by artificial intelligence (AI)
Key points:
1. A federal judge upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that AI-generated art is not eligible for copyright protection.
2. The ruling emphasized that human authorship is a fundamental requirement for copyright protection.
3. The judge stated that copyright law protects only works of human creation and is not designed to extend to non-human actors like AI.
Main topic: Copyright concerns and potential lawsuits surrounding generative AI tools.
Key points:
1. The New York Times may sue OpenAI for allegedly using its copyrighted content without permission or compensation.
2. Getty Images previously sued Stability AI for using its photos without a license to train its AI system.
3. OpenAI has begun acknowledging copyright issues and signed an agreement with the Associated Press to license its news archive.
Main topic: The use of copyrighted books to train large language models in generative AI.
Key points:
1. Writers Sarah Silverman, Richard Kadrey, and Christopher Golden have filed a lawsuit alleging that Meta violated copyright laws by using their books to train LLaMA, a large language model.
2. Approximately 170,000 books, including works by Stephen King, Zadie Smith, and Michael Pollan, are part of the dataset used to train LLaMA and other generative-AI programs.
3. The use of pirated books in AI training raises concerns about the impact on authors and the control of intellectual property in the digital age.
I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I cannot access or summarize specific copyrighted materials. I can generate summaries and provide information based on general knowledge and publicly available sources. If you have any other topic or question you'd like me to assist with, please feel free to ask.
### Summary
A federal judge in the US ruled that an AI-generated artwork is not eligible for copyright protection since it lacks human authorship.
### Facts
- The judge agreed with the US Copyright Office's rejection of a computer scientist's attempt to copyright an artwork generated by an AI model.
- The judge stated that copyright protection requires human authorship and that works absent of human involvement have been consistently denied copyright protection.
- The ruling raises questions about the level of human input needed for copyright protection of generative AI and the originality of artwork created by systems trained on copyrighted pieces.
- The US Copyright Office has issued guidance on copyrighting AI-generated images based on text prompts, generally stating that they are not eligible for protection.
- The agency has granted limited copyright protection to a graphic novel with AI-generated elements.
- The computer scientist plans to appeal the ruling.
### Summary
A federal judge ruled that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, which could impact Hollywood studios and their use of AI.
### Facts
- đ¤ Plaintiff Stephen Thaler sued the US Copyright Office to have his AI system recognized as the creator of an artwork.
- đŤ US District Judge Beryl Howell upheld the Copyright Office's decision to reject Thaler's copyright application.
- đ Howell stated that human authorship is a fundamental requirement for copyright and cited the "monkey selfie" case as an example.
- â How much human input is needed for AI-generated works to qualify as authored by a human will be a question for future cases.
- âď¸ Hollywood studios may face challenges in their contract disputes with striking actors and writers, as AI-generated works may not receive copyright protection.
The use of copyrighted works to train generative AI models, such as Meta's LLaMA, is raising concerns about copyright infringement and transparency, with potential legal consequences and a looming "day of reckoning" for the datasets used.
The New York Times is reportedly considering suing OpenAI over concerns that the company's ChatGPT language model is using its copyrighted content without permission, potentially setting up a high-profile legal battle over copyright protection in the age of generative AI.
Three artists, including concept artist Karla Ortiz, are suing AI art generators Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt for using their work to train generative AI systems without their consent, in a case that could test the boundaries of copyright law and impact the way AI systems are built. The artists argue that feeding copyrighted works into AI systems constitutes intellectual property theft, while AI companies claim fair use protection. The outcome could determine the legality of training large language models on copyrighted material.
A federal judge has ruled that works created by artificial intelligence (A.I.) are not covered by copyrights, stating that copyright law is designed to incentivize human creativity, not non-human actors. This ruling has implications for the future role of A.I. in the music industry and the monetization of works created by A.I. tools.
Authors such as Zadie Smith, Stephen King, Rachel Cusk, and Elena Ferrante have discovered that their pirated works were used to train artificial intelligence tools by companies including Meta and Bloomberg, leading to concerns about copyright infringement and control of the technology.
Artificial intelligence (AI) poses risks in the legal industry, including ethical dilemmas, reputational damage, and discrimination, according to legal technology experts. Instances of AI-generated content without proper human oversight could compromise the quality of legal representation and raise concerns about professional responsibility. Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently settled a lawsuit involving discriminatory use of AI in the workplace, highlighting the potential for AI to discriminate. Maintaining trust and credibility is crucial in the reputation-reliant field of law, and disseminating AI-generated content without scrutiny may lead to reputational damage and legal consequences for lawyers or law firms. Other legal cases involving AI include allegations of copyright infringement.
OpenAI is seeking the dismissal of claims made by authors and comedians in two separate lawsuits, which allege copyright infringement regarding the use of their books to train ChatGPT, while OpenAI argues that its usage falls under fair use and transformative interpretation of the original works.
âA Recent Entrance to Paradiseâ is a pixelated artwork created by an artificial intelligence called DABUS in 2012. However, its inventor, Stephen Thaler, has been denied copyright for the work by a judge in the US. This decision has sparked a series of legal battles in different countries, as Thaler believes that DABUS, his AI system, is sentient and should be recognized as an inventor. These lawsuits raise important questions about intellectual property and the rights of AI systems. While Thaler's main supporter argues that machine inventions should be protected to encourage social good, Thaler himself sees these cases as a way to raise awareness about the existence of a new species. The debate revolves around whether AI systems can be considered creators and should be granted copyright and patent rights. Some argue that copyright requires human authorship, while others believe that intellectual property rights should be granted regardless of the involvement of a human inventor or author. The outcome of these legal battles could have significant implications for the future of AI-generated content and the definition of authorship.
UK publishers have called on the prime minister to protect authors' intellectual property rights in relation to artificial intelligence systems, as OpenAI argues that authors suing them for using their work to train AI systems have misconceived the scope of US copyright law.
AI researcher Stephen Thaler argues that his AI creation, DABUS, should be able to hold copyright for its creations, but legal experts and courts have rejected the idea, stating that copyright requires human authorship.
The United States Copyright Office has launched a study on artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law, seeking public input on various policy issues and exploring topics such as AI training, copyright liability, and authorship. Other U.S. government agencies, including the SEC, USPTO, and DHS, have also initiated inquiries and public forums on AI, highlighting its impact on innovation, governance, and public policy.
Microsoft will pay legal damages on behalf of customers using its artificial intelligence products if they are sued for copyright infringement for the output generated by such systems, as long as customers use the built-in "guardrails and content filters" to reduce the likelihood of generating infringing content.
A group of U.S. authors, including Pulitzer Prize winner Michael Chabon, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, accusing the Microsoft-backed program of using their works without permission to train its chatbot ChatGPT, and seeking damages and an order to block OpenAI's business practices.
Meta is being sued by authors who claim that their copyrighted works were used without consent to train the company's Llama AI language tool.
A group of best-selling authors, including John Grisham and Jonathan Franzen, have filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, accusing the company of using their books to train its chatbot without permission or compensation, potentially harming the market for their work.
Several fiction writers are suing Open AI, alleging that the company's ChatGPT chatbot is illegally utilizing their copyrighted work to generate copycat texts.
Amazon has introduced new guidelines requiring publishers to disclose the use of AI in content submitted to its Kindle Direct Publishing platform, in an effort to curb unauthorized AI-generated books and copyright infringement. Publishers are now required to inform Amazon about AI-generated content, but AI-assisted content does not need to be disclosed. High-profile authors have recently joined a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI, the creator of the AI chatbot, for alleged copyright violations.
Meta and other companies have used a data set of pirated ebooks, known as "Books3," to train generative AI systems, leading to lawsuits by authors claiming copyright infringement, as revealed in a deep analysis of the data set.
Information services company Thomson Reuters is suing Ross Intelligence for unlawfully copying content from its legal-research platform to train a competing AI-based platform, setting the stage for one of the first trials related to unauthorized data use for AI training.
Media mogul Barry Diller criticizes generative artificial intelligence and calls for a redefinition of fair use to protect published material from being captured in AI knowledge-bases, following lawsuits against OpenAI for copyright infringement by prominent authors, and amidst a tentative labor agreement between Hollywood writers and studios.
The book "The Futurist" by author and journalist Peter Rubin is among the thousands of pirated books being used to train generative-AI systems, sparking concerns about the future of human writers and copyright infringement.
Big tech firms, including Google and Microsoft, are engaged in a competition to acquire content and data for training AI models, according to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who testified in an antitrust trial against Google and highlighted the race for content among tech firms. Microsoft has committed to assuming copyright liability for users of its AI-powered Copilot, addressing concerns about the use of copyrighted materials in training AI models.
Summary: The use of pirated books to train artificial intelligence systems has raised concerns among authors, as AI-generated content becomes more prevalent in various fields, including education and the workplace. The battle between humans and machines has already begun, with authors trying to fight back through legal actions and Hollywood industry professionals protecting their work from AI.
Tech companies are facing backlash from authors after it was revealed that almost 200,000 pirated e-books were used to train artificial intelligence systems, with many authors expressing outrage and feeling exploited by the unauthorized use of their work.
Tech companies are facing backlash from authors whose books were used without permission to train artificial intelligence systems, with the data set consisting of pirated e-books; authors are expressing outrage and calling it theft, while some see it as an opportunity for their work to be read and educate.
Books by famous authors, including J.K. Rowling and Neil Gaiman, are being used without permission to train AI models, drawing outrage from the authors and sparking lawsuits against the companies involved.
Tech companies are using thousands of books, including pirated copies, to train artificial intelligence systems without the permission of authors, leading to copyright infringement concerns and loss of income.
