I don’t necessarily fault OpenAI’s decision to initially train their models without entering into licensing agreements - they probably wouldn’t exist and the generative AI revolution may never have happened if they put the horse before the cart. I do think they should quickly course correct at this point and accept the fact that they clearly owe something to the creators of content they are consuming. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a bigger loss down the road and leaving the door open for a more established competitor (Google) to do it the right way.
If your "fair use" substantially negatively affects the market for the original source material, which I think is fairly clear in this case, the courts wont look favorably on that.
Of course, I think this is a great test case precisely because the power of "Internet scale" and generative AI is fundamentally different than our previous notions about why we wanted a "fair use exception" in the first place.
> If your "fair use" substantially negatively affects the market for the original source material, which I think is fairly clear in this case, the courts wont look favorably on that.
I think it's fairly clear that it doesn't. No one is going to use ChatGPT to circumvent NYTimes paywalls when archive.ph and the NoPaywall browser extension exist and any copyright violations would be on the publisher of ChatGPT's content.
But let's not pretend like any of us have any clue what's going to happen in this case. Even if Judge Alsup gets it, we're so far in uncharted territory any speculation is useless.
I definitely agree with that (at least the "far in uncharted territory bit", but as far as "speculation being useless", we're all pretty much just analyzing/guessing/shooting the shit here, so I'm not sure "usefulness" is the right barometer), which is why I'm looking forward to this case, and I also totally agree the assessment is flexible.
But I don't think your argument that it doesn't negatively affect the market holds water. Courts have held in the past that the market for impact is pretty broadly defined, e.g.
> For example, in one case an artist used a copyrighted photograph without permission as the basis for wood sculptures, copying all elements of the photo. The artist earned several hundred thousand dollars selling the sculptures. When the photographer sued, the artist claimed his sculptures were a fair use because the photographer would never have considered making sculptures. The court disagreed, stating that it did not matter whether the photographer had considered making sculptures; what mattered was that a potential market for sculptures of the photograph existed. (Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992).)
From https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/