The NYTimes is suing Microsoft and OpenAI for stealing its work. Unlike some other suits, this one might get traction. Judges religiously believe and infinitely value everything spewed by NYTimes, so they will be inclined to support the suit.
= = = = =
Later, Jonathan Bartlett at MindMatters has a different take on this suit. (1) ChatGPT rewrites the material in its own words, so it’s not strictly a violation of copyright. (2) Human authors and composers and inventors are always derivative. We absorb what we’ve read or seen or used, and make text or art or devices that pivot on what we already know.
Therefore the specific use of AI in this case is no different from what human authors do. Bartlett concludes that the case is really about metaphysics and morality. Should we protect the role of humans?
Well, yes, but… Copyright is not about authorship or morality. Copyright is STRICTLY AND PURELY about money. Many creators misunderstand this basic distinction.
Publishers sue when the derivative is taking money that the publisher would otherwise have received. NYTimes believes this type of AI is pulling revenue from NYTimes, while the people who read the paper and write material based on what they read are not pulling revenue. Lawsuits are also purely about money, not morality. A lawsuit that can’t prove deprivation of money, or deprivation of the ability to make money, won’t get anywhere. Competent lawyers won’t handle the suit.
Polistra's Mill 