Numerous publishers have signed information agreements with OpenAI, including Designed parent company Condé Nast, but dozens of copyright lawsuits against AI startups are currently pending in US courts. Many of these problems allege strong copyright infringement, arguing that it’s illegal for AI organizations to train their resources on information reports, ebooks, drawings, and other copyrighted materials without permission. Other allegations range from trademark law violations to violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a copyright law that is currently being used by intellectual property rights holders in large numbers.
The DMCA was the subject of Alternet and Raw Story’s lawsuit, alleging that OpenAI violated the law by scraping thousands of news articles and removing” copyright management information” ( CMI ) like the author’s name, work use conditions, and work title. The outlets requested statutory damages of no less than$ 2,500 per violation, alleging that OpenAI was aware that ChatGPT’s summary or “regurgitated” articles would be subject to copyright infringement when they “regularized” or “regularized” them.
The publishers alleged that they had no legal standing to bring this claim, claiming that they had failed to provide evidence ChatGPT had been taught their material or that the training had been harmful. Judge Colleen McMahon of the US Southern District of New York rejected OpenAI’s argument because it lacked standing.
” We build our AI models using publicly available data, in a manner protected by fair use and related principles, and supported by long-standing and widely accepted legal precedents”, says OpenAI spokesperson Jason Deutrom.
Although this has a significant impact on Raw Story and Alternet, it is n’t always the end. According to Raw Story co-founder and CEO John Byrne,” We do intend to continue the case.” The judge must then grant the request to make a modified complaint.
” We’re confident that we can address the court’s concerns in an amended complaint”, says Matt Topic, a partner at Loevy &, Loevy, the firm representing Raw Story Media. While Judge McMahon describes herself as “skeptical” that the outlets could “allege a cognizable injury” in the dismissal, her ruling does indicate that she’s open to considering a new filing.
Topic, who also represents The Intercept in a similar DMCA case involving Microsoft and The Intercept, and the nonprofit newsroom Center for Investigative Reporting in a copyright infringement case involving both OpenAI and Microsoft, says he is” confident that these kinds of DMCA claims are permitted under the Constitution.”
Not all experts agree. ” These claims make no sense and should all be dismissed, so I am not surprised by this ruling”, says Matthew Sag, a professor of law and artificial intelligence at Emory University. He contends that the publishers failed to demonstrate that ChatGPT had distributed copies of their work after removing CMI in part because they did not provide evidence that the publishers had broken the law.
According to Ann G. Fort, an attorney for intellectual property and Eversheds Sutherland partner, the news outlets will need to provide specific examples of ChatGPT’s infringing responses. ” They’re going to need to show output”, she says.
In a number of AI lawsuits, DMCA claims have been particularly contentious. In The Intercept case, OpenAI filed a motion to dismiss over standing, too, but the court procedure was slightly different, and the publisher was given leave to file an amended complaint. It did so this past summer, strengthening its case by including examples of how OpenAI’s models could be prompted to produce snippets of text that were, at least in one case, nearly identical to an Intercept article. It added 600 pages of exhibits to its case. This month’s end is when the court is scheduled to rule.
The judge pointed out that she found the specific DMCA claims lacking rather than the broader concept of infringement, regardless of whether Raw Story and Alternet are ultimately permitted to file an amended complaint. Let’s be clear about the real issues facing us. The alleged injury for which the plaintiffs truly seek redress is not the exclusion of CMI from defendant’s training sets, but rather the defendant’s use of plaintiff’s articles to develop ChatGPT without compensation to plaintiff”, Judge McMahon writes. It’s not yet known whether this kind of harm is caused by another statute or legal theory. However, the court is not currently hearing that query.
However, some experts believe this ruling could, indeed, have far-reaching consequences. According to James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and internet law at Cornell University,” This theory of no standing is actually a potential earthquake far beyond AI.” It has the potential to significantly limit the types of IP cases that can be heard in federal courts. He speculates that the argument made in this case could be extended to say that publishers have no legal standing to sue for model training at all, even if it was against copyright.
