OpenAI Faces โคCopyright Ruling inโ Germany, Signaling Potential Shift for โฃAI andโ Art
Aโฃ German court recently ruled againstโข OpenAI, finding the company liable โคfor โคcopyright infringement โrelated to the use of song lyrics in the training data for ChatGPT.โ The court resolute that OpenAIโข infringed on copyright by makingโ the โlyrics available to the public through shareable links generated by the AI.
Theโข ruling mandates that OpenAI disclose how frequently specific โlyrics were used in its training data, when (if ever) profit was generated from โtheir use, and โrequires theโข company to cease storing and reproducing the lyrics. Monetary damages will be โฃassessed atโ a later date.
This decision contrasts with aโข recentโข UK court case where Getty Images lost its claimโฃ against Stability AI. The UKโ judge ruled that because stabilityโฃ AI’s model doesn’t store or reproduce copyrighted works, it doesn’t create an “infringingโข copy.” Tho, legal scholar Andres Guadamuz notes the German court’s reliance on researchโ concerning machine “memorization,” a process more readily demonstrated with text like lyrics than with images.
The German court’s decision aligns with established intellectual property law, โassertingโ that if copyrighted material canโ be reproduced perceptibly, it constitutes a monetizable copy โค- a principle applicable โtoโข both physical media โขlike CDs and within โLarge โขlanguage Models (LLMs).
Guadamuz does raise concerns about the ruling’s attempt to establish training without memorizationโฃ asโ the legal standard, โciting a misinterpretation of EU data-mining law.Heโข argues the โขruling implies memorization always โฃ occurs duringโ training, which isn’t necessarily true. This potentialโ legal ambiguity could impact how companies interpret the case โขmoving forward. However, Guadamuz predicts the ruling willโข likelyโ lead to โคthe progress of a licensing market for copyrighted material used in AI training.
The situation echoes the evolving response to OpenAI’s Sora โฃ2, whereโ initial โconcerns about โcopyright and likeness from actors andโฃ copyright holders haveโ gradually shifted towards exploring revenue-sharing models. This trendโ is visible in recent partnerships between major โU.S. record labels, like Global Music Group and Udio, withโ companies they previously sued.
Despite thisโค movement towards collaboration with powerful stakeholders, the benefits for smaller artists, writers,โ and creators – those concerned about their work becoming obsolete in the โขage of โgenerative AI – remain unclear. The ruling highlights the ongoing challenge of ensuring equitable compensationโ and recognition for all copyright holders in the rapidly evolving landscape of โฃAI-generated content.
