What if that turns out to be completely irrelevant?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I knew absolutely nothing about contract law and was then filmed stealing a book you wrote on the subject from a book store. I then started a business where I would answer questions about contract law, based solely on what I learned from the book. Of course, my memory isn't perfect, but I don't like to admit when I'm wrong, so sometimes I just make stuff up. People line up to pay me anyway.
Now, the owner of the book store you might be able to get me arrested for petty theft. Do you think there is any possibility you, as the author, could successfully litigate a copyright claim against me? I'd argue not. Do you think you could get an injunction enjoining me from engaging in my contract law Q&A business? Again, I think that would be highly unlikely.
It isn't clear to me that any court is going to hold that LLMs are being used to create derivative works, any more than someone who reads a book, whether they paid for it or not, and then speaks or writes about a topic covered by a book they've read has done so. It is entirely possible the IP laws, as they currently exist simply do not cover what LLMs are doing. The laws certainly were not written with this kind of scenario in mind.
Replace "answer questions about contract law, based solely on what I learned from the book" with "generate cartoon images, based solely on what ML learned from Disney IP" and see how badly that will go.
Replace it with any subject. The point stands - it isn't at all clear how the courts will treat this.
Take your example: I'm a self-taught artist, and I learned everything I know about art by studying cartoons made by Disney. Maybe I paid for these cartoons, maybe I didn't. I then make a website where I draw my own cartoons, which, since I've never seen any other art, look a lot like Disney's. Unless I'm straight-up copying their characters, they would have no claim against me.
> I then make a website where I draw my own cartoons, which, since I've never seen any other art, look a lot like Disney's. Unless I'm straight-up copying their characters, they would have no claim against me.
The law pertains ultimately to the actions of humans. We don't allow non-human animals or machines access to legal system. Even in the specious only-Disney-inspired-artist scenario presented (courts don't use unrealistic hypotheticals like that), there would have to be consideration given to the fact that you somehow never got any access to other art, so you were severely disadvantaged.
But most of all, you the disadvantaged Disneyesque-drawing artist not a generative AI, so you should have more legal latitude to create works inspired than others work than the person who creates the LLM has.
The LLM creator instead has just created a very good style plagiarism machine, one that lacks the ability to be inspired, much less attribute the styles that it plagiarizes.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I knew absolutely nothing about contract law and was then filmed stealing a book you wrote on the subject from a book store. I then started a business where I would answer questions about contract law, based solely on what I learned from the book. Of course, my memory isn't perfect, but I don't like to admit when I'm wrong, so sometimes I just make stuff up. People line up to pay me anyway.
Now, the owner of the book store you might be able to get me arrested for petty theft. Do you think there is any possibility you, as the author, could successfully litigate a copyright claim against me? I'd argue not. Do you think you could get an injunction enjoining me from engaging in my contract law Q&A business? Again, I think that would be highly unlikely.
It isn't clear to me that any court is going to hold that LLMs are being used to create derivative works, any more than someone who reads a book, whether they paid for it or not, and then speaks or writes about a topic covered by a book they've read has done so. It is entirely possible the IP laws, as they currently exist simply do not cover what LLMs are doing. The laws certainly were not written with this kind of scenario in mind.