Topic, which represents The Intercept in a similar DMCA case against OpenAI, as well as the nonprofit newsroom Center for Investigative Reporting in a copyright infringement case against both OpenAI and Microsoft, says it is “reassured That these types of DMCA claims are permitted “under the Constitution.”
Not all experts agree. “These claims make no sense and should be rejected, so I'm not surprised by this decision,” says Matthew Sagg, a professor of law and artificial intelligence at Emory University. They believe that the publishers failed to prove that OpenAI broke the law in part because they did not provide concrete examples of why ChatGPT distributed copies of its work after CMI removed it.
Ann G. Forte, an intellectual property attorney and partner at Eversheds Sutherland, doubts that news outlets will be required to provide specific examples of how ChatGPT generates infringing responses. “They will need to show output,” she says.
DMCA claims have been particularly controversial in several AI lawsuits. In the Intercept case, OpenAI also filed a motion to dismiss over standing, but the court procedure was slightly different, and the publisher was allowed to file an amended complaint. It did just that last summer, adding 600 pages of exhibits to bolster its case Example How OpenAI's models can be induced to produce snippets of text that are identical to the Intercept article in at least one respect. the court is expected To rule later this month.
Whether or not Raw Story and Alternate are ultimately allowed to file an amended complaint, this week's dismissal does not preempt other legal arguments; The judge explicitly stated that he found the lack of specific DMCA claims rather than the broader concept of infringement. “Let's be clear about what is really at stake here. “The alleged injury for which Plaintiffs actually seek redress is not the exclusion of CMI from Defendant’s training set, but rather Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s articles to develop ChatGPT without compensation to Plaintiff,” writes Judge McMahon. . “Whether there is any other statute or legal principle that gives rise to these types of damages remains to be seen. But that question is not before the court today.”
However, some experts believe that this decision could actually have far-reaching consequences. “This principle of having no status is actually a much more potential earthquake than AI,” says James Grimmelman, a professor of digital and internet law at Cornell University. “This has the potential to significantly restrict the types of IP cases that can be heard by federal courts.” He suspects that the logic applied in this case could be extended to argue that publishers “do not have the right to sue model training, even for copyright infringement.”