It may become necessary to amend the Information Technology rules to ensure fair compensation and ensure that news publishers in India are fairly compensated for the use of their content in training generative artificial intelligence models in the wake of rising AI copyright disputes around the globe.
As a result of DNPA's letters to the ministries of information, electronics, and broadcasting, requesting safeguards against infringements of copyrights in the digital news space, it has requested safeguards against the use of artificial intelligence models that could cause copyright infringements.
In recent decades, Artificial Intelligence technology has progressed rapidly, and this has had a significant impact on people's daily lives.
In the past, people would search for information on Google and sift through a few results, but now they can use chatbots to receive answers to specific questions or generate content for specific searches.
OpenAI is one of the more popular artificial intelligence models that anyone can use for conversational tasks.
According to DNPA, which represents 17 top media publishers in the country, including Times Group, which publishes ET, until the Digital India Act comes into effect, the DNPA is asking to amend the IT Rules.
As a result, it is expected to replace the over-24-year-old IT Act, of 2000, and regulate artificial intelligence.
Earlier this month, the New York Times announced that millions of its articles had been used unlawfully to train Microsoft-backed OpenAI bots, which now compete with the news outlet as reliable information sources, in the US district court in Manhattan where it filed its December 27 lawsuit.
The New York Times has not sought monetary compensation from the companies; however, it has claimed that the companies had gotten huge amounts of money in statutory and actual damages, according to the lawsuit it filed to enforce its rights to copy its innovative and unique works without authorization.
Companies were ordered to destroy any chatbots or training data created by using any copyrighted materials that might have been used by the companies.
As mentioned, the company noted in its statement in April that it had already approached OpenAI in April, asking for a commercial agreement or the introduction of 'technological guardrails' in its next-generation technologies.
The term 'derivative works' is used in the context of deriving from existing works protected by intellectual property rights, for example, if they introduce variations from the original work, they may also be protected by the laws of intellectual property.
A TalkGPT response is based on the model's learning from data and several pre-existing sources of input to its responses, which makes it a form of Generative Artificial Intelligence.
Depending on the case, derivative works can either be created using works in the public domain or based on works that have explicit permission from the copyright holder.
The degree of alteration that must be introduced to the original material for it to be considered a derivative work to qualify for copyright protection will depend on the type of work involved.
The potential adequacy of translating certain works into another language is acknowledged, while others may demand a complete shift to an alternative medium.
Essentially, the act of substituting a few words in a written piece proves insufficient to generate a derivative work; a substantial modification of the content becomes imperative.
For a work to be considered derivative, it must encompass a sufficient amount of the original material, firmly rooted in its source.
The ascendancy and widespread adoption of ChatGPT give rise to noteworthy concerns surrounding intellectual property, necessitating careful consideration.
Amendments to existing copyright laws may be requisite to effectively address the distinctive challenges posed by advancements in AI technology.
This Cyber News was published on www.cysecurity.news. Publication date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 13:13:05 +0000