usatoday24
Thomson Reuters He has won The first important case against AI in the United States. This legal victory can end up being an important precedent in an open war that exists between generative companies and human creators and content creative companies.
When chatgpt or existed. One of the curiosities of the case is that the demand arrived in 2020, even before the revolution created by Chatgpt and other generative AI models occurred. At that time Thomson Reuters demanded the startup of the so -called Ross Intelligence. According to them, the company had reproduced material from its legal research division, called Westlaw.
The judge, inflexible. As they explain In Wiredthe defense arguments did not convince Judge Stephanos Bibas, of the Court of the District of Delaware. In his sentence he indicated that “none of Ross’s possible defenses is sustained. I reject them all.”
Fair use, nothing. Normally IA companies are shielded in the doctrine of fair use (“Fair Use”). This legal criterion maintains that limited use of protected material is allowed without needing permission from the owner of those rights. As explained in Wiredel, four factors are analyzed: the reasons for creating the work, its nature (if it is an essay, a poem, a private letter), the amount of material used, and how that use impacts the market value of the original.
Be careful for what copies. Thomson Reuters won two of those analyzes, but the fourth was for Judge Bibas the most important, because Ross “wanted to octize with Westlaw developing a substitute for the market.” That is: they were copied to try to compete with them in the same market.
A precedent with a problem. Curiously Ross Intelligence closed its doors in 2021, precisely Faced with costs of the dispute. It is precisely the opposite with AI giants, who usually have many more economic resources when defending these types of demands. The legal precedent is undoubtedly relevant, but it may be more difficult to wield it if the litigation costs cannot be supported by the plaintiffs.
Care, generative. The appearance of all kinds of generative models has unleashed a wave of demands for copyright violation. One of the most important cases is what The New York Times holds against Openaibut there are others like the one that affects Microsoft by Github Copilotthat of Stable Diffusion and Midjourney or the recent one Meta scandal and the books with copyright that he used to train his AI models.
Fair use and competition. Precisely this judgment raises an important legal obstacle for AI companies. First, for that argument of the fair use that may now not work. And secondly, due to the fact that when using those works protected by copyright, the impact for the original works can be remarkable.
Images | WIRESTOCK | Solen Feyissa
In Xataka | Openai has used Copyright content to train its models: now it faces a wave of demands
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings