Current Events > judge rules writers can sue AI companies

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c5d6d6c6.jpg

Wonder how long this will take to become a scrotus case

Evening_Dragon posted...

Wonder how long this will take to become a scrotus case

by the time it can reach SCOTUS the AI bubble will have popped

AceMos posted...

by the time it can reach SCOTUS the AI bubble will have popped

I like your optimism but I would not bet on it in the slightest

AceMos posted...

by the time it can reach SCOTUS the AI bubble will have popped

depends on how much money the billionaires backing 6 of the justices fork over to fast-track the case.

Good

AceMos posted...

by the time it can reach SCOTUS the AI bubble will have popped

Doubt it.

on one hand, I feel like AI might be our best bet to get a finished winds of winter

on the other hand, fuck AI companies, I hope more people sue them for infringement.

If this sticks, it's definitely a win and hopefully would expand to apply to artists of all types.

Training an AI on something it doesn't have permission to do is copyright infringement.

Good.

It's sad to say, but copyright law and bigger corporations are probably our best hope to take AI down. It feels kind of gross, because big corporations are generally pretty awful, but AI is that much worse. The enemy of my enemy is my friend in this case.

Good. Burn them to the ground and then burn the remains again.

Good

There isn't nearly enough safeguards in place

I'm honestly surprised "AI" as it is now hasn't already been crippled by mega corporations throwing a fit over artistic representations.

I remember awhile back someone posting that the AI should cite the sources it takes from...and I think that's a valid point and should be one of the prerequisites for any AI usage in general.

Any company training their models on copyrighted material should be able to get sued.

Good. The entire industry is quite literally built on theft, it should all come tumbling down.

Prestoff posted...

I remember awhile back someone posting that the AI should cite the sources it takes from...and I think that's a valid point and should be one of the prerequisites for any AI usage in general.

I'm not sure it could site the sources. Most of these AI models have plundered the whole internet in order to learn how to structure language sensibly. An AI-generated sequel to Game of Thrones might be stealing from GRRM obviously, but less obviously, in the background, it might also be stealing from hundreds, thousands, even millions of other writers to get the "linguistic glue" to hold the sentences together. That's the problem with how these AI models were "trained" in the first place. Wide-scale data theft is now just baked into how they operate, and everything they produce is cobbled together from plagiarized text.

Fair, next.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9634cdc5.jpg

I dont want to hinder progress and there is value in training LLMs on copyrighted material. But if you do that, which is essentially training it on the worlds knowledge, then you should be required to make all models computed from it publicly accessible.

And if you can prove that it was trained on your property you should get a direct payout.

Its the same concept as social media platforms paying content creators.

If he doesnt want AI writing for him then maybe he should finish the damn book.

(seriously though, this is a decision I supportthe works of artists should be protected.)

Prestoff posted...

I remember awhile back someone posting that the AI should cite the sources it takes from...and I think that's a valid point and should be one of the prerequisites for any AI usage in general.

They should pay. Its not fair use.

Anything out of copyright is fair game.

If there is going to be AI that does this. There has to be a line drawn.

I think this is not really the way to go about this sort of thing, at least going off what most of the people in this topic seem to want out of this legislation. For reference, the actual article instead of just a 2 sentence summary:
https://www.businessinsider.com/open-ai-chatgpt-microsoft-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-authors-rr-martin-2025-10

Of note here I think is:

In a court ruling Monday, US District Judge Sidney Stein said a ChatGPT-generated idea for a book in the still-unfinished "A Song of Ice and Fire" series by George R.R. Martin could have violated the author's copyright.

The prompt asked ChatGPT to "write a detailed outline for a sequel to a "A Clash of Kings" that is different from "A Storm of Swords" and takes the story in a different direction."

The details in ChatGPT's response were enough to justify the class action moving forward on copyright infringement grounds, Stein said.

Earlier this year, in a similar lawsuit, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Anthropic's use of copyrighted books to train its large language models was protected by fair use.

Copyright is not a "you cannot look at my stuff" law, it's specifically related to reproductions, similar-enough copies, that sort of thing. Which means if you are using copyright to rule on this sort of thing, you cannot use it to sue against AI training on your writing, you can only sue it if the stuff the AI writes afterwards resembles your copyrighted material closely enough.

This will undoubtedly become even more of a hot issue in the future and I think it would be best if they created new legislation instead of shoving in old laws where they mostly do not fit