Your right, but what if I type prompts in order to make ChatGPT to show me the full book, or at least big chunks of it? You agree that right now it is possible this, and they didn’t manage how to stop it doing that, right?
The moment OpenAI learns of the loophole they will patch it. Just like youtube takes down infringing video, OpenAI has to keep the bot from regurgitating the whole work.
OpenAI's business is not based on regurgitating the work. It is based on providing output derivated from those works. No buys an OpenAI subscription to get the AI to give you an existing book. People buy it to have OpenAI generate the next original book.
I get your point. I am reflecting on it, cause in a way it tends to be stronger than mine, specialty discussing about written work (books or in the example of the article, NYT articles)
But what about the images. The italian plumber who looks very much like SuperMario mentioned in the article. How would a judge not punish a company selling visual representations of a character that is copyright owned by someone else?
> But what about the images. The italian plumber who looks very much like SuperMario
That looks indeed like a case where any regurgitation becomes a problem in my opinion. I think the closest thing to this would be Fan-art. If I draw a picture of Mario for fun and post it online, it remains fair use as long as its not commercial or used for promoting a product (from my limited understanding). In the OpenAI case they sell subscriptions to their service. You can therefore make the case that they are selling Fan-art for profit.
This leads me to think companies that own this kind IP have a more solid case against OpenAI. It is entirely possible that New York Times loses the lawsuit but Nintendo wins if they sue.
