this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
846 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

59559 readers
3746 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
846
Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works (www.cnn.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
362 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's the "paid in exposure" argument.

And I'm not sure what my company pays, but they purchase access to scientific papers and industrial standards. The market price I've seen for them is hundreds of dollars. You either pay an ongoing subscription to access the information, or you pay a larger lump sum to own a copy that cannot legally be reproduced.

Companies pay for this sort of thing. AI shouldn't get an exception.

[–] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

TBF, access to scientific papers funded by public money should be free to the public anyway. The whole needing a subscription to access them is malarkey. The researchers aren't the ones getting the money.

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This needs to be signal boosted, regarding researchers, research, and money.