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 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 US court ruled that creative work made by artificial intelligence is ineligible for copyright, a significant ruling amid the ongoing Hollywood writer's strike.
### Facts
- 🤖 Artificial intelligence-generated art cannot be protected by copyright, according to a US federal judge.
- 📜 The ruling may codify intellectual property rights regarding creative works made by AI versus those made by humans.
- ⚖️ The ruling was made by US District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell and supported by the register of copyrights and director of the US Copyright Office, Shira Perlmutter.
- ⚠️ The significance of the ruling comes amid ongoing writers' and actors' strikes in Hollywood, as there are fears that studios will use AI-generated work to avoid paying writers and actors.
- 🧠 The plaintiff, Stephen Thaler, argued that his AI, the "Creativity Machine," should be recognized as the author of a piece of artwork, but the US Copyright Office denied the application.
- 📚 The ruling also clarifies that the copyright for AI-generated work cannot be claimed by the AI's users under the work-for-hire doctrine.
### How does this relate to Hollywood and AI?
- 🎥 The ruling has implications for Hollywood's use of AI-generated content and the ongoing concerns of writers' and actors' unions.
- 💡 The question of copyrightability for works made by AI has become increasingly relevant as generative AI becomes more prevalent globally.
- 💰 Entertainment and media companies are investing significantly in generative AI and may become global leaders in the field.
- 🌐 By 2025, it is projected that 90% of all content may be partly AI-generated.
### 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
- 🤖 Plaintiff Stephen Thaler sued the US Copyright Office to have his AI system recognized as the creator of an artwork.
- 🚫 US District Judge Beryl Howell upheld the Copyright Office's decision to reject Thaler's copyright application.
- 📜 Howell stated that human authorship is a fundamental requirement for copyright and cited the "monkey selfie" case as an example.
- ❓ How much human input is needed for AI-generated works to qualify as authored by a human will be a question for future cases.
- ⚖️ 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.
A federal judge ruled that AI-generated art is not eligible for copyright protection in the US due to the absence of human authorship.
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.
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.
A Washington D.C. judge has ruled that AI-generated art should not be awarded copyright protections since no humans played a central role in its creation, establishing a precedent that art should require human authorship; YouTube has partnered with Universal Music Group to launch an AI music incubator to protect artists from unauthorized use of their content; Meta has introduced an automated translator that works for multiple languages, but concerns have been raised regarding the impact it may have on individuals who wish to learn multiple languages; major studios are hiring "AI specialists" amidst a writers' strike, potentially leading to a future of automated entertainment that may not meet audience expectations.
The US Copyright Office has initiated a public comment period to explore the intersection of AI technology and copyright laws, including issues related to copyrighted materials used to train AI models, copyright protection for AI-generated content, liability for infringement, and the impact of AI mimicking human voices or styles. Comments can be submitted until November 15.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Atlantic has revealed that Meta's AI language model was trained using tens of thousands of books without permission, sparking outrage among authors, some of whom found their own works in Meta's database, but the debate surrounding permission versus the transformative nature of art and AI continues.
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.
