> Taking all newspaper and proper journalistic output and rewording it automatically and selling it on is also 'fair use'?
it would be, if the transformation is substantial. If you're just asking for snippets of existing written works, then those snippets are merely derivative works.
For example, if you asked an LLM to summarize the news and stories of 2024, i reckon the output is not infringing. Because the informational contents of the news is not itself copyrightable, only the article itself. A summary, which contains a precis of the information, but not the original expression, is surely uncopyrightable - esp. if it is a small minority of the source (e.g., chatGPT used millions of sources).
> won't be able to make a living so these important activities will cease.
this is irrelevant as far as i'm concerned. They being able to make or not make a living is orthogonal. If they can't, then they should stop.
> this is irrelevant as far as i'm concerned. They being able to make or not make a living is orthogonal. If they can't, then they should stop.
It's not orthogonal - it's central. Copyright law and IP law isn't some abstract thing - it's a law with a purpose - to protect people from having their work ripped off in a way that they can no longer work.
If journalists can't gather the news, then sure events still happen but Google et al won't be able to summarise them as they will be no reports.
If scientific journals can no longer afford to operate as nobody needs to subscribe because anybody can get the content free via a rip-off, then there will be no scientific journals to rip-off.
Surely stealing stuff and selling it on is convenient for both big tech and consumers - but it's not a sustainable economic model.
it would be, if the transformation is substantial. If you're just asking for snippets of existing written works, then those snippets are merely derivative works.
For example, if you asked an LLM to summarize the news and stories of 2024, i reckon the output is not infringing. Because the informational contents of the news is not itself copyrightable, only the article itself. A summary, which contains a precis of the information, but not the original expression, is surely uncopyrightable - esp. if it is a small minority of the source (e.g., chatGPT used millions of sources).
> won't be able to make a living so these important activities will cease.
this is irrelevant as far as i'm concerned. They being able to make or not make a living is orthogonal. If they can't, then they should stop.