I feel like thats one of the many questions regulators and law makers are going to be asked long term. I'm sure buying the book for "commercial purposes" like that would't be appropriate, but then again, does that mean if I read it and then summarize it in my work, or regurgitate its info as part of my job...I'm violating a license?
A world where humans have special permissions but LLMs don't seems pretty interesting to consider, especially if they're both doing the same kind of things with the data.
There's nothing illegal about reading a book and then circulating your summary/review of it. This doesn't even get into issues of fair use because you aren't redistributing any of the copyrighted material in the first place, merely facts and your own opinions about it.
The separate issue that's concerning is that GPT can't be trusted to accurately summarize anything obscure at all, but it'll sure throw text at you nonetheless.
> There’s nothing illegal about reading a book and then circulating your summary/review of it. This doesn’t even get into issues of fair use because you aren’t redistributing any of the copyrighted material in the first place, merely facts and your own opinions about it.
A summary may or may not be a derivative work before considering Fair Use; “redistributing copyrighted material” isn’t the only exclusive right of copyright: producing copies is, but more to the point so is producing derivative works.
A world where humans have special permissions but LLMs don't seems pretty interesting to consider, especially if they're both doing the same kind of things with the data.