• Guntrigger@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Interesting take. In all of the defences of LLMs using copyrighted material it’s very often highlighted that “fair use” allows exactly such summaries of larger texts.

    In reality, “fair use” is ruled on a case by case basis, so it’s impossible to judge whether something is or not without it going to court.

    • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      We’re not making legislation here, so we don’t have that level of burden of proof. But either way, when it comes to factors of fair use that every authority on the matter will list, it violates almost all of them.

      It’s non-commercial, and it’s using facts rather than using a more creative work, so it’s got that going for it… But it’s

      • composed of 100% copied material

      • it’s not transformative

      • it’s substituting the original work

      • it uses officially published work

      • it specifically copies the “heart” of the work

      • it bypasses all of the ads and impacts their traffic/metrics so it has a financial impact on them.

      It’s pretty obvious that there is no argument here. The factors that are violated the hardest and most undisputably are the ones that most authorities on the matter (including the one I linked) agree are the most important.