Sarah Silverman and other authors filed a lawsuit against AI company OpenAI, claiming its ChatGPT model used their copyrighted works without authorization.
However, a judge dismissed several of the plaintiffs’ claims.
The judge ruled that simply alleging ChatGPT outputs are derivative works was insufficient without evidence they are substantially similar to the original works.
AI expert Marva Bailer said, “The ruling for this case is going to be consistent with many other cases.”
“They’re trying to prove that the input into OpenAI, which is a large language model, will be derivative of their original work. And what constitutes that is the output of the work. So, that’s what this case means. They’re examining the output to see if it has the copyright in the likeness of the original work,” she continued.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ruled, “Plaintiffs fail to explain what the outputs entail or allege that any particular output is substantially similar – or similar at all – to their books. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the vicarious copyright infringement claim with leave to amend.”
“This court case is going to be one of many,” predicts Bailer.
She added, “And for artists to win and authors to win, they are being asked to connect the dots. And that is going to be a very challenging opportunity for people to be able to connect those dots.”
Judge Martinez-Olguin wrote, “Plaintiffs provide no facts supporting this assertion. Indeed, the Complaints include excerpts of ChatGPT outputs that include multiple references to Plaintiffs’ names, suggesting that OpenAI did not remove all references to ‘the name of the author.’”
“Even if Plaintiffs provided facts showing Defendants’ knowing removal of CMI from the books during the training process, Plaintiffs have not shown how omitting CMI in the copies used in the training set gave Defendants reasonable grounds to know that ChatGPT’s output would induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement,” the judge continued.
Bailer said, “What we’re looking at is the Fair Use Act.”
“And so, one of the arguments is, is this education? And if it is education, then it would be OK to use these works. But where the authors and creators are having a challenge is they’re feeling like they’re losing compensation, but they need to connect the dots. And that’s where the nuance is going to come in,” she explained.
“The plaintiffs do have the opportunity to come back and connect the dots. But what that looks like is they’re going to need to prove that they have either lost income or lost the opportunity for their brand,” explained the AI expert.
Bailer said, “I feel this argument is not about compensation. It is about control and consistency.”
“They’re thinking of the then and now, and they’re trying to protect the brand and likeness, but they are not thinking of the future economies that they could really be a part of,” warned Bailer.
The judge upheld the unfair competition claim but otherwise found lack of proof around removal of copyright management information, distribution of derivative works, and duties between the parties.
Bailer analyzed that future cases will examine whether AI models’ outputs constitute copyright infringement of inputs.
She noted proving lost income or brand opportunities from AI use will be challenging for famous authors.
While plaintiffs view it as controlling their work, Bailer believes the suit is less about money and more about intellectual property in this new technological context.
Most Popular:
Cause of Death Released For ‘Rocky’ Movie Star
Supreme Court Audio Suggests Trump Case Is Doomed
