zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
You do copyright for content that you invented and which didn't exist before.

But NYT content is reporting on events truthfully to the public without any fiction or lies.

Since there can be only one truth it should not matter whether NYT or Washington Post or ChatGPT is spinning it out.

Unless NYT is claiming they don't report truth and publishes fiction.

That is of concern since, NYT claims to reporth news truthfully.

So is NYT scamming Americans hundreds of millions of dollars by charging for subscription fees by making a false promise on things that they report?

This should be the bigger question here.

>>rand12+P7
Not sure where you're coming from in this. A NYT article, once written is copyrighted. Using the content without attribution is at best plagiarism, and spitting it out the way the LLMs do is definitely a violation of if that copyright.

Unless you're telling me ChatGPT has eyes and sources just like the NYT and is worrying events as it sees them too?

>>passwo+W8
I don't understand. So if New York times reported on a new laws of physics and put as an article will became copyrighted? Nobody would be able to talk about it and has to discover it by themselves?

How is reporting on an event different from reporting on discovering a scientific law?

>>rand12+m9
The exact words used to explain the scientific law are copyrighted by the writer (presumably the paper's authors). Rephrasings are not copywrited by the source, but by the rephrasing entity (e.g. the NYT, or a teacher that made a handout for their class).

Copyright on scientific papers is most definitely a thing, by the way.

>>jprete+Ve
If the bar for copyright is as low as ordering of words, then I don't even know what to say.