Using ChatGPT While Also Respecting Copyright
People and businesses are quickly discovering the power and productivity of OpenAI chatbot assistants like ChatGPT. However, in their embrace of the new AI, they may accidentally overlook the danger of copyright infringement. In this article we discuss some of the amazing things ChatGPT can do, how it does it, and how one can avoid stomping on someone’s copyright protections while using the AI.
Tools for creating outputs based on descriptions are not new. We can find tools to create music midis or even generate drawings based on cave paintings. The types of works generated by algorithms can be broken down into different categories depending on the vision we want to explore, but the aspect that seems crucial to us, for the scalping of different situations, is interconnected with the categorization of the intensity of the input human in creating an AI-generated work. Only in this way is it possible to identify or not a legitimate author and owner of these works.
Copyright legislation was undoubtedly designed for human creations. It is evident that humans can use tools that help their creation, however, his creative expression must be included in his result. It is enough to think of a brush, a pencil, or a camera, to consider that the author is the one who wrote, drew or photographed. The problem with this software is that it blurs the differences between creative and non-creative human input.
To guide our reasoning, we must bear in mind that an idea is not protectable. When I ask an algorithm to write a novel about a love triangle, I am not the author of the resulting piece, since I only expressed an idea and not the way it unfolds. Therefore, from the outset, an output generated by ChatGPT is neither susceptible to protection by the user, nor by the company that owns the algorithm.
Another issue concerns derivative works and their respective infringements. A derivative work is a work that contains creative expressions of earlier works. They contain identity fragments of previous works that can be manifested in new works. It is not clear who can be held liable in case of infringement of these earlier rights.
One of the processes will involve investigating the training data and checking whether it has been fed with the work in question. If this is the case, it must be analyzed further to determine whether this is a limitation to the use of a work.