That's not the example. Here I proactively scrape NYT, summarise articles for a fee and sell that as a service. It's not people coming to me with some articles to summarise, and maybe then publishing it online.
At some level it becomes a subversion of NYTs fees. First, say I subscribe and simply host the articles verbatim, for a fee. Clearly, that's not right.
Suppose I change some spelling or word order, or use a synonym or two. That's still not ok.
And if I substantially paraphrase the articles? I guess this is the relevant case. This is kind of what LLMs do. And also feels like not fair use.
>That's not the example. Here I proactively scrape NYT, summarise articles for a fee and sell that as a service. It's not people coming to me with some articles to summarise, and maybe then publishing it online.
That's not what OpenAI is doing; it's not selling summarised articles as a service. Your example is a false equivalence.
>This is kind of what LLMs do. And also feels like not fair use
An LLM doesn't do this unless you ask it to. And if you then take that output and publish it as your own, you're breaching the copyright, not OpenAI.
> An LLM doesn't do this unless you ask it to. And if you then take that output and publish it as your own, you're breaching the copyright, not OpenAI.
In this case, OpenAI is violating copyright by modifying, reproducing and distributing copyrighted content to its customer.
At some level it becomes a subversion of NYTs fees. First, say I subscribe and simply host the articles verbatim, for a fee. Clearly, that's not right.
Suppose I change some spelling or word order, or use a synonym or two. That's still not ok.
And if I substantially paraphrase the articles? I guess this is the relevant case. This is kind of what LLMs do. And also feels like not fair use.