Encyclopedia Britannica Sues OpenAI For Copyright, Trademark Infringement (engadget.com)
- Reference: 0181010414
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/16/182217/encyclopedia-britannica-sues-openai-for-copyright-trademark-infringement
- Source link: https://www.engadget.com/ai/encyclopedia-britannica-sues-openai-for-copyright-and-trademark-infringement-164747991.html?src=rss
> More specifically, Britannica alleged that OpenAI illegally used its "copyrighted content at a massive scale" when training its AI models. Not just with training, the encyclopedia company claimed that ChatGPT's responses to user queries sometimes contain "full or partial verbatim reproductions of [Britannica's] copyright articles."
>
> Along with claims of copyright violations, Britannica argued that OpenAI was also responsible for trademark infringement. According to the lawsuit, ChatGPT generates "made-up content or 'hallucinations' and falsely attributes them" to Encyclopedia Britannica. The lawsuit doesn't specify an amount for monetary damages, but Britannica is also seeking an injunction to prevent OpenAI from repeating these accusations.
[1] https://tmsnrt.rs/4sowXqI
[2] https://www.engadget.com/ai/encyclopedia-britannica-sues-openai-for-copyright-and-trademark-infringement-164747991.html
I Hope They Win (Score:4, Insightful)
The AI companies have been acting like Uber (ie. breaking existing laws with the assumption they're "too big to catch").
However, this is as clear of a case of copyright violation as there could be. I hope Britannica wins!
Re: (Score:2)
Facts are not copyrightable. So it will come down to how much really is verbatim.
It's been a while but... (Score:2)
As a kid in the pre-Internet era, I was still expected to research and regurgitate without quoting verbatim.
If AI is going to get better, it's going to need to work more like a human - come up with an initial response using its internal model, research and confirm with verified sources, and then produce output based on that research but not just copying it.
That and give it a sense of time and the ability to discard discounted tokens so they don't pollute answers later in the same session.
Re: It's been a while but... (Score:2)
But how do you cite references when the answer literally comes from 5000 documents all strung together?
Re: (Score:2)
The same way I wrote university essays. I write from my understanding and memory of what happened and how things worked. I then identified presumptions in the writing. I then searched for references that backed them up. Sometimes that would prove my understanding wrong and I'd have to rewrite bits.
Britannica is an AI company itself now (Score:3)
They are pushing back against competition from Open AI and others, but not for the reason many think:
> While it still offers an online edition of its encyclopedia, as well as the Merriam-Webster dictionary, Britannica’s biggest business today is selling online education software to schools and libraries, the software it hopes to supercharge with AI. ...
>
> Britannica’s CEO Jorge Cauz also told the Times about the company’s Britannica AI chatbot, which allows users to ask questions about its vast database of encyclopedic knowledge that it collected over two centuries from vetted academics and editors. The company similarly offers chatbot software for customer service use cases.
>
> Britannica told the Times it is expecting revenue to double from two years ago, to $100 million.
[1]https://gizmodo.com/encycloped... [gizmodo.com]
They are pinning their future on providing AI products trained on their encyclopedias and research notes, putting them in somewhat direct competition with the other AI companies.
[1] https://gizmodo.com/encyclopedia-britannica-is-now-an-ai-company-2000542600
In which we learn... (Score:2)
Encyclopedia Britannica still exists. Who knew?
All your everything are belong to us... (Score:2)
Given today's regulatory environment, Encyclopedia Britannica may as well be howling at the moon for all the good this suit will do them. Big Tech increasingly engages in de facto governance, with the tacit permission of the elected government. And even if there's the possibility of getting a favourable court ruling, EB will be mired in an endless litany of appeals that they probably don't have enough money to see through to the end.
It's the Golden Rule, as in 'he who has the gold makes the rules'. God I ha
Re: (Score:2)
is that really true though?
In the US we have been watching state of state pass age verification rules etc, despite big tech howling. The courts have forced open the app stores. The EU has managed levy massive fines.
I am not denying big tech has a lot of money and by extension a lot of influence but I have yet to see "Big Tech" really thumb their nose at legislative entity (state or bigger anyway) or an appeals court. It seems anytime their is sufficient motivation they can indeed be brought to heel.
Re:All your everything are belong to us... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US we have been watching state of state pass age verification rules etc, despite big tech howling
What? Big tech WANTS age verification. That should be pretty obvious by now. Who do you think is lobbying for it? If big tech didn't want it, it would be crushed. Age verification benefits Palentir, Meta, Microsoft, Google, Oracle and many others. It's NOT about age verification. It's the first step towards full digital identification and removal of all anonymity.
> The courts have forced open the app stores.
Nope. Their court order effectively does nothing when Google retaliates by forcing everyone who wants to make a distributable Android app send Google their fucking Government ID!
[1]https://keepandroidopen.org/ [keepandroidopen.org]
[1] https://keepandroidopen.org/
Re: (Score:2)
> What? Big tech WANTS age verification. That should be pretty obvious by now. Who do you think is lobbying for it? If big tech didn't want it, it would be crushed. Age verification benefits Palentir, Meta, Microsoft, Google, Oracle and many others. It's NOT about age verification. It's the first step towards full digital identification and removal of all anonymity.
That's honestly taking a lot longer to be pushed through legal channels than I thought it would. There was a time a decade or so ago where Zuckerbot was saying he wanted Facebook to become the defacto digital ID for the United States and to have it used for everything from banking to social media ID tied to a real human being. The fantasy of big tech has been to tie all online activity to a real human for almost as long as big tech has existed. While I'm not surprised they're getting close to pulling it off
Re: (Score:2)
The US courts are interesting in that they still have some degree of independence from lobbying. Lawmakers are backed by big tech lobbying efforts. The US courts are fairly good about some things, especially freedom of speech. The decision in favor of Meta and against publishers was a fucking tragedy. It's sad that the Supreme Court doesn't seem interested in picking it up, but at some point, copyright complaints over the Weighted Random Word machines is no longer going to be something they can ignore.
At