Paraphrasing is also known as cloning and is often a copyright violation
In US copyright law facts cannot be copyrighted, so copyright on factual content like newspaper articles is limited. Simply replacing a few words wouldn't work, but I am certain that GPT-4 is capable of paraphrasing factual content at a level that would not be considered infringement if a human did it.
Seems like the legal answer is unclear but, like Napster, such a system seems like it would lose in court.
Nobody is seriously going to ChatGPT and trying to trick it into regurgitating old NYT articles as an alternative to paying for access to NYT's archives. Meanwhile, newspapers went as far as getting the laws changed in several countries because they felt Google was competing with them too much and didn't like the fact that it was legal.
Genuinely - what are you talking about besides your own assumptions? you just assume everything google does is legal and therefore any one else doing anything arguably similar must also be legal? Without regard for factual details that do matter to copyright law? Such as license?? Your own description of copyright law here is very stunted - you can't paraphrase articles of the NYTimes and call it a fair use. You can report on what the NYtimes reports on... because that's what news is.
Not an assumption. This is well established. They've been doing it for twenty years!
> Without regard for factual details that do matter to copyright law? Such as license??
What license? Google doesn't in general have or need an explicit license to crawl websites and neither does OpenAI.
Can they? Here's reference to a legal fight where Google scraped song lyrics from a lyrics website, and presented the lyrics verbatim directly to users (bypassing the original site and the ads that allowed that site to operate)
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/genius-law...
