In evidence for the suit against OpenAI, the plaintiffs claim ChatGPT violates copyright law by producing a “derivative” version of copyrighted work when prompted to summarize the source.

Both filings make a broader case against AI, claiming that by definition, the models are a risk to the Copyright Act because they are trained on huge datasets that contain potentially copyrighted information

They've got a point.

If you ask AI to summarize something, it needs to know what it's summarizing. Reading other summaries might be legal, but then why not just read those summaries first?

If the AI "reads" the work first, then it would have needed to pay for it. And how do you deal with that? Is a chatbot treated like one user? Or does it need to pay for a copy for each human that asks for a summary?

I think if they'd have paid for a single ebbok Library subscription they'd be fine. However the article says they used pirate libraries so it could read anything on the fly.

Pointing an AI at pirated media is going to be hard to defend in court. And a class action full of authors and celebrities isn't going to be a cakewalk. They've got a lot of money to fight, and have lots of contacts for copyright laws. I'm sure all the publishers are pissed too.

Everyone is going after AI money these days, this seems like the rare case where it's justified