News Nvidia being sued by writers for unauthorized use of their works in generative AI training

[helper800]

Actually it is. Seriously if you download a Nike logo then use that logo to make money, they would hit you with a trademark violation so fast it would make your head spin.

Then again, you can't distinguish between copyright and trademark, so not much hope you can effectively understand the law as it applies to those.

I never confused trademark and copyright. I also don't have to resort to the implication that you don't understand basic definitions or have the mental capacity to understand such definitions...

 

[husker]

Honestly, nobody should be declaring what the courts will and will not do at this point; the intersection of generative AI and fair use is pretty new in the courts right now.

While I agree nobody should be "declaring" anything, I disagree with your reason. Fair use is fair use; no level of technology masking can change that. Can you imagine a scenario in which using AI to steal money is somehow not illegal because the intersection of financial AI and banks is pretty new? AI is a a tool, not a person who can "take the blame" away from whatever entity is enabling it to operate.

 

[DSzymborski]

While I agree nobody should be "declaring" anything, I disagree with your reason. Fair use is fair use; no level of technology masking can change that. Can you imagine a scenario in which using AI to steal money is somehow not illegal because the intersection of financial AI and banks is pretty new? AI is a a tool, not a person who can "take the blame" away from whatever entity is enabling it to operate.

There are no magic words in law. Whether someone can invoke fair use in order to use copyright in a way not authorized by the rightsholder is subject to a four-pronged test regarding the specific use in question. "Fair use is fair use," is a pithy slogan or a bumper sticker, not something that has anything to do with how courts approach these questions.

And right now, there is very little that's directly on point in these AI cases. There is a *lot* of litigation to come before anyone can declare how courts view the intersection between AI usage, copyright, and the fair use doctrine.

 

[helper800]

There are no magic words in law. Whether someone can invoke fair use in order to use copyright in a way not authorized by the rightsholder is subject to a four-pronged test regarding the specific use in question. "Fair use is fair use," is a pithy slogan or a bumper sticker, not something that has anything to do with how courts approach these questions.

And right now, there is very little that's directly on point in these AI cases. There is a *lot* of litigation to come before anyone can declare how courts view the intersection between AI usage, copyright, and the fair use doctrine.

That was my position since the beginning. You can neither condemn nor exonerate the use of these materials until such a time we get court rulings on the subject...

 

[USAFRet]

That was my position since the beginning. You can neither condemn nor exonerate the use of these materials until such a time we get court rulings on the subject...

I disagree.

I can personally dislike, condemn, excoriate many things that are "legal".
Nothing says I personally have to like everything legal.

Now, my opinion means little on the worldwide stage. But it is what it is.

 

[helper800]

I disagree.

I can personally dislike, condemn, excoriate many things that are "legal".
Nothing says I personally have to like everything legal.

Now, my opinion means little on the worldwide stage. But it is what it is.

I never said you have to like or dislike anything legal, just that the legal system will let us know, because we are laymen, whether or not illicit actions were taken.

 

[USAFRet]

I never said you have to like or dislike anything legal, just that the legal system will let us know, because we are laymen, whether or not illicit actions were taken.

"You can neither condemn nor exonerate..."

The courts may have other ideas, but none of us have to agree or disagree.

 

[helper800]

"You can neither condemn nor exonerate..."

The courts may have other ideas, but none of us have to agree or disagree.

If you follow that quote a few more words you get more context. Let me elaborate a bit more. I assume none of the posters here have legal expertise related to trademark and copywrite law. To understand the nuances of what has been done you need such expertise. Having hardliner opinions on something with little to no understanding is illogical. You do not have to agree or disagree, but it is revealing to ones intellect or inability to separate oneself from emotion to have extreme positions with no insight.

 

[DSzymborski]

I think you two are just saying different things and as a result, are talking past each a bit.

USAFRet, I believe, is talking more along the lines of expressing an opinion, while helper, if I'm not mistaken means expressing or condemning in the context of the legality.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a significant need for being current on IP law; I'm a data journalist who both writes things in national publications and writes proprietary algorithms. Because of my time with ESPN, I've talked to in-house counsel a lot about these issues since they're specific to my career.

 

[helper800]

USAFRet, I believe, is talking more along the lines of expressing an opinion, while helper, if I'm not mistaken means expressing or condemning in the context of the legality.

Yes, exactly!

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a significant need for being current on IP law; I'm a data journalist who both writes things in national publications and writes proprietary algorithms. Because of my time with ESPN, I've talked to in-house counsel a lot about these issues since they're specific to my career.

Seems you have had a very interesting career, thanks for sharing.

 

[USAFRet]

Yes, opinion.

The courts can make whatever ruling they choose. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[helper800]

Yes, opinion.

The courts can make whatever ruling they choose. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

You do have a good point. Not all laws are good and, as others have said, lag behind the times. There are tons of laws on the books in a lot of states that are ridiculous because they are remnants from 200 years past. Point being, just because we have laws does not mean they are morale or good.

 

[husker]

There are no magic words in law. Whether someone can invoke fair use in order to use copyright in a way not authorized by the rightsholder is subject to a four-pronged test regarding the specific use in question. "Fair use is fair use," is a pithy slogan or a bumper sticker, not something that has anything to do with how courts approach these questions.

And right now, there is very little that's directly on point in these AI cases. There is a *lot* of litigation to come before anyone can declare how courts view the intersection between AI usage, copyright, and the fair use doctrine.

I think you'd change your tune if someone used AI to drain your bank account. All I'm hearing is "laws don't apply when you use AI to do it".

 

[DSzymborski]

I think you'd change your tune if someone used AI to drain your bank account. All I'm hearing is "laws don't apply when you use AI to do it".

The state of the legal system on AI and copyright doesn't change based on how you personally feel about it.

 

[husker]

The state of the legal system on AI and copyright doesn't change based on how you personally feel about it.

This is true, but another way to say it might be that "the state of the legal system on AI and copyright doesn't change based on logic". By the way, these comments are good for expressing how I personally feel about such topics, so no apologies there.