Topic, which also represents The Intercept in a similar DMCA case against OpenAI, as well as the nonprofit newsroom Center for Investigative Reporting in a copyright infringement case against OpenAI and Microsoft, says it is “confident that this type of DMCA claims is allowed. under the Constitution. »
Not all experts agree. “These claims make no sense and should all be rejected, so I am not surprised by this decision,” says Matthew Sag, professor of law and artificial intelligence at Emory University. He believes the publishers failed to prove that OpenAI broke the law in part because they failed to provide concrete examples showing that ChatGPT distributed copies of their work after removing CMI.
Ann G. Fort, an intellectual property attorney and partner at Eversheds Sutherland, suspects the media will need to provide specific examples of how ChatGPT produces infringing responses. “They will have to show their performance,” she said.
DMCA claims have been particularly controversial in a number of AI lawsuits. In The Intercept case, OpenAI also filed a motion to dismiss for challenging standing, but the legal process was slightly different and the publisher was allowed to file an amended complaint. She did so last summer, strengthening her arguments by adding 600 pages of exhibits, including examples of how OpenAI’s models could be tricked into producing text snippets that were in at least one case nearly identical to an Intercept article. The court is expected rule later this month.
Whether or not Raw Story and Alternet are ultimately allowed to file an amended complaint, this week’s dismissal does not appear to preclude further legal arguments; the judge emphasized that she considered the specific DMCA allegations to be lacking rather than the broader concept of infringement. “Let’s be clear about what’s really at stake here. The alleged harm for which Plaintiffs truly seek relief is not the exclusion of CMI from Defendant’s training sets, but rather Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s articles to develop ChatGPT without compensation to Plaintiff,” writes the Justice McMahon. “It remains to be seen whether there is another law or legal theory that elevates this type of harm. But that issue is not before the courts today.
However, some experts believe that this decision could indeed have far-reaching consequences. “This baseless theory is actually a potential earthquake well beyond AI,” says James Grimmelmann, professor of digital and internet law at Cornell University. “This could potentially significantly restrict the types of intellectual property cases that federal courts can hear.” He suspects that the logic applied in this case could be extended to argue that publishers have no standing at all to “sue training models, even for copyright infringement.”
