The New York Times and the Daily News encountered an unexpected twist in their copyright lawsuit: an OpenAI engineer inadvertently deleted virtual machine search data that could have been key evidence, adding a dramatic turn to this high-profile legal dispute. According to a letter submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday night, lawyers and technical experts for the two media companies had previously invested over 150 hours searching OpenAI's AI training dataset. However, on November 14, an OpenAI engineer accidentally deleted data stored on the virtual machine.

Recently, the Southern District Court of New York dismissed the copyright infringement lawsuit against OpenAI filed by Raw Story Media, Inc. and AlterNet Media, Inc., stating that the case lacked standing. This ruling marks an important victory for OpenAI in the legal disputes between AI and copyright, providing a reference for handling similar cases in the future. Raw Story and AlterNet are two online news outlets primarily focused on leftist perspectives.

Recently, OpenAI reached an agreement in a high-profile copyright lawsuit to disclose the data used to train its generative AI models to the plaintiff's lawyers. The copyright lawsuit's plaintiffs include several well-known authors such as Paul Tremblay, Sarah L. J. Elfreth, Michael Chabon, David Henry Huang, and Ta-Nehisi Coates. They filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and its affiliates last year, accusing the AI of using their works without authorization.

A recent survey reveals widespread concern among U.S. business leaders regarding the regulation and governance of artificial intelligence, particularly around issues of data privacy, security risks, and ethical use. The survey shows that 84% of data, privacy, and AI decision-makers support updating U.S. copyright laws to adapt to the AI era. 81% of respondents believe that big tech companies should compensate individuals whose data is used for AI training, reflecting a shift in the recognition of personal data value. Large enterprises support government regulation of AI more than small businesses do. 64% of respondents...

In a copyright lawsuit against The New York Times, OpenAI has requested access to the newspaper's internal research materials and documents in order to evaluate the validity of claims that ChatGPT copied content. The New York Times has opposed this request, arguing that it could pose a threat to press freedom. The core focus of the lawsuit is the scope of copyright assessment, with The New York Times insisting it only pertains to published articles, while OpenAI's lawyers are interested in internal documents to verify the accusations. The lawsuit also hints at future trends in AI training methods, which may increasingly rely on high-quality data rather than sheer volume.

Recently, a fierce debate over copyright has erupted in the field of artificial intelligence music. After being sued by the three major record companies, Universal Music, Sony Music, and Warner Music, AI music startup Udio issued a statement today, firmly asserting that its model does not replicate copyrighted works or the voices of artists.

The artificial intelligence image generator Midjourney has amended its terms of service, replacing previous humorous wording with more formal legal language. Midjourney has consistently claimed that using copyrighted works to train its model is permissible under the principle of 'fair use.' Some artists and content creators believe that Midjourney's actions infringe on their copyrights. The amendment to the terms of service may indicate that they are confident in winning copyright lawsuits in court.

["OpenAI claims that The New York Times hired hackers to attack ChatGPT","OpenAI argues that the hiring of hackers by The New York Times is critical","The New York Times used prompts to attack ChatGPT","OpenAI retaliates against blatant violations of product usage terms","AI companies face a copyright lawsuit crisis similar to Google's","Internet companies selling data to AI companies","Proposal for the latest data selection research framework","AI-generated content accelerates its spread across the Internet","Large models admit to using AI-generated data"]

A music publisher sues Anthropic for infringement, while the latter defends itself citing 'transformative use'. Anthropic claims that using lyrics to train AI models is 'transformative use', emphasizing the creation of datasets to teach neural networks how human language operates. They reject claims of irreparable harm, pointing out the lack of evidence showing that their AI models led to a decrease in song licensing revenue.

OpenAI publicly responds to the New York Times copyright lawsuit, stating that using public data to train AI systems is fair use. The company emphasizes that during the creation of generative AI systems like GPT-4 and DALL-E 3, it did not learn from billions of sources but rather engaged in fair use. OpenAI explains that the generative AI model outputs training data verbatim in response to prompts and calls for users to act responsibly. The company refutes the New York Times' allegations of data regurgitation, asserting that AI-generated content is distinctly different from the original text.

OpenAI has recently filed a motion to dismiss five claims in two copyright lawsuits regarding the use of copyrighted material in the training data for ChatGPT and its underlying language models, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. OpenAI argues that large language models have transformative qualities and should be subject to the fair use doctrine. OpenAI plans to mount a defense in court against direct infringement claims.

Google and OpenAI use bots to collect data from the internet, but recent copyright laws have posed obstacles to their data scraping efforts. AI models require human-generated content to improve, but whether companies should pay for or freely obtain this content is a concern. OpenAI has begun using datasets created by ChatGPT to train GPT-4, but relying solely on this data could lead to model failures.