The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 8 of 18. DEFENDANTS’ INTENTIONAL REMOVAL OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FROM PLAINTIFF’S WORKS IN THEIR TRAINING SETS 96. ChatGPT and Copilot do not have any independent knowledge of the information provided in their responses. Rather, to service Defendants’ paying customers, ChatGPT and Copilot instead repackage, among other material, the copyrighted journalism work product developed by Plaintiff, and others, at often considerable expense. 97. When providing responses, ChatGPT and Copilot give the impression that they are an all-knowing, “intelligent” source of the information being provided, when in reality, the responses are frequently based on copyrighted works of journalism that ChatGPT and Copilot simply mimic. 98. If ChatGPT and Copilot were trained on works of journalism that included the original author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information, they would have learned to communicate that information when providing responses to users unless Defendants trained them otherwise. 99. Based on the information described above, thousands of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works were included in Defendants’ training sets without the author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information that Plaintiff conveyed in publishing them. 100. Based on the information above, including the OpenAI Defendants’ admission to using the Dragnet and Newspaper extraction methods, which remove author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information from copyright-protected news articles published online, the OpenAI Defendants intentionally removed author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information from Plaintiff’s copyrighted works in creating ChatGPT training sets. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 8 of 18. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 8 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here DEFENDANTS’ INTENTIONAL REMOVAL OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FROM PLAINTIFF’S WORKS IN THEIR TRAINING SETS 96. ChatGPT and Copilot do not have any independent knowledge of the information provided in their responses. Rather, to service Defendants’ paying customers, ChatGPT and Copilot instead repackage, among other material, the copyrighted journalism work product developed by Plaintiff, and others, at often considerable expense. 97. When providing responses, ChatGPT and Copilot give the impression that they are an all-knowing, “intelligent” source of the information being provided, when in reality, the responses are frequently based on copyrighted works of journalism that ChatGPT and Copilot simply mimic. 98. If ChatGPT and Copilot were trained on works of journalism that included the original author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information, they would have learned to communicate that information when providing responses to users unless Defendants trained them otherwise. 99. Based on the information described above, thousands of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works were included in Defendants’ training sets without the author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information that Plaintiff conveyed in publishing them. 100. Based on the information above, including the OpenAI Defendants’ admission to using the Dragnet and Newspaper extraction methods, which remove author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information from copyright-protected news articles published online, the OpenAI Defendants intentionally removed author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information from Plaintiff’s copyrighted works in creating ChatGPT training sets. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. motherjones.com

OpenAI's Alleged Role in Copyright Infringement and Removal of Copyright Management Information

How ChatGPT and Copilot’s Abridgments May Violate Copyright Laws

Too Long; Didn't Read

Get Free Unlimited IP Geo Data With IPinfo Lite

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due: News Outlet Sues AI for Removing Copyright Information

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

How to Copyright Your AI Creations

Center for Investigative Reporting Sues OpenAI in New York Federal Court

The Center for Investigative Reporting Claims OpenAI Exploited Its Work Without Permission

Is ChatGPT a Liar? Oldest Non-profit Newsroom Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against OpenAI

Why New York Is the Chosen Venue for the CIR Lawsuit Against OpenAI

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

How to Copyright Your AI Creations

Center for Investigative Reporting Sues OpenAI in New York Federal Court

The Center for Investigative Reporting Claims OpenAI Exploited Its Work Without Permission

Is ChatGPT a Liar? Oldest Non-profit Newsroom Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against OpenAI

Why New York Is the Chosen Venue for the CIR Lawsuit Against OpenAI

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps