维基媒体基金会在一群里程碑式的AI版权案件中打出中间点，推动法院从法律上保护大型语言模型(LLMs)关于版权作品的培训——但不是聊天员重新给用户带来效果。 一个过于黑白化的裁决，它称，可能要么剥夺维基百科使用有用的基于AI的工具，要么危及开放的网络。
维基百科的运营商称错误的AI版权裁决可能威胁到开放的网络
在NYT诉OpenAI案中，维基媒体基金会称训练AI应该被公平使用
维基百科背后的非营利组织在包括《纽约时报》在内的一系列针对OpenAI和Microsoft的诉讼中，" 维基媒体关注到，本案中双方的立场促使公平使用原则过于宽泛和简化适用 "，而该组织在其法律档案中则以大赦国际为中心。 它担心，出版商的无细微的胜利可能让版权持有者“保持”甚至对其作品的创新和变革性使用。 另一方面，AI公司的胜利可能构成“轻视许可条款和分散人类作者与受众之间知识流动的绿灯”。
" 维基媒体对本案中当事方的立场表示关切，即推动公平使用原则过于宽泛和简化的适用 "
该裁决对于维基百科来说可能是存在性的。 维基媒体网站“已成为所有人工智能和机器学习培训的最关键数据来源之一”，但是，这些系统吸引了游客，破坏了维护这些网站的社区。 维基媒体认为他们也侵犯了版权：ChatGPT等服务转载了根据创用CC授权自由使用的文本
同时，它称，为这些系统提供动力的大型语言模型对维基百科很有用：它们可以帮助编辑们打击破坏行为，侦测侵犯版权行为和涂鸦行为，并寻找需要改进的文章等用途。
“一项不认真适用公平使用原则的裁决可能威胁自由知识的可持续性，并扼杀开源技术的发展，最终影响每个人在这两种情况下获得信息的机会，”维基媒体基金会总理事会Stephen LaPorte 称在一份声明中。 “法院需要理解，维基百科是通过一个协作过程创建的，这个过程需要开放和可获取的人类知识的坚实基础才能蓬勃发展。”
“不认真适用公平使用原则的裁决可能威胁到自由知识的可持续性”。
《泰晤士报》认为，公平使用的定义应更加宽泛，因为它适用于LLMs。 例如，它声称，OpenAI通过拆除其建立培训数据集的网站而侵犯了其版权。 OpenAI和Microsoft都认为使用LLMs构成公平使用。 OpenAI拥有称，重命名工作“是一种罕见的bug”。 Microsoft在9月的存档中发现，专家分析发现，Copilot很少从用于打压该模型的新闻内容中复制完整的句子，称"严重地破坏了LLM训练的转型目的".
维基媒体提出妥协。 使用有版权的作品在没有许可证的情况下预训LLMs，当这些网站提供“与原始来源不同的新东西”时，便应构成公平用途。 但是，如果这些模型根据用户的询问抽取材料副本，然后将这些材料交给用户，" 同时取代读者参与这些原著，" 这需要许可证。 关键区别在于，在后一种情况下，AI输出只是取代了原作品，并没有将其改造到足以符合公平使用的条件。
在这种情况下，Wikimedia 称认为AI公司应尊重使用此类信息的许可要求。 对维基百科来说，这意味着根据它的"创意共同"许可证将原始信息来源记为信用，这也要求"任何remix或改编"仍保留在该许可证之下。
维基百科所依赖的自由和开放的人类知识，“通过大赦国际扩大获取知识的机会是一个强有力的目标，但必须尊重使可靠的知识成为可能的人、贡献者和社区。 找到这种平衡既是互利的，也是对整个信息生态系统的共同责任。”
本文由 AI图鉴自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
The Wikimedia Foundation is staking out a middle ground in a group of landmark AI copyright cases, pushing courts to legally protect large language models (LLMs) training on copyrighted work — but not chatbots regurgitating that work to users. An overly black-and-white ruling, it says, could either deprive Wikipedians of useful AI-based tools or endanger the open web.
Wikipedia’s operator says a bad AI copyright ruling could threaten the open web
In the NYT’s case against OpenAI, the Wikimedia Foundation says training AI should be fair use — but regurgitating articles shouldn’t.
In an amicus brief filed Friday, the nonprofit behind Wikipedia weighed in on a set of lawsuits pitting publishers including The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft, taking neither side. “Wikimedia is concerned that the parties’ positions in this case push for overbroad and simplified applications of the fair use doctrine” around AI, the organization says in its legal filing. A nuance-free victory for publishers, it fears, could let copyright holders “gatekeep” even innovative and transformative uses of their work. On the other hand, a victory for AI companies could constitute “a green light to snub licensing terms and fragment the flow of knowledge between human authors and audiences.”
“Wikimedia is concerned that the parties’ positions in this case push for overbroad and simplified applications of the fair use doctrine”
The ruling could be existential for Wikipedia. Wikimedia websites “have become one of the most critical sources of data for all artificial intelligence and machine learning training,” the company says in the filing. But these same systems siphon away visitors, undermining the communities that maintain these sites. Wikimedia argues that they’re also violating copyright: services like ChatGPT reproduce text that’s licensed freely under Creative Commons, it says, but don’t adhere to the terms of that license.
At the same time, it says, the large language models that power these systems are useful to Wikipedia: they can help editors fight vandalism, detect copyright violations and doxxing, and look for articles that need improvement, among other uses.
“A ruling that does not apply fair use principles carefully could threaten the sustainability of free knowledge, and stifle the development of open source technologies, ultimately impacting access to information for everyone in both cases,” Wikimedia Foundation general council Stephen LaPorte says in a statement. “The court needs to understand that Wikipedia is created through a collaborative process that requires a strong foundation of open and accessible human knowledge to thrive.”
“A ruling that does not apply fair use principles carefully could threaten the sustainability of free knowledge”
The Times argues for a more expansive definition of fair use as it applies to LLMs. It alleges, for example, that OpenAI infringed on its copyright by scraping its website to build training datasets. OpenAI and Microsoft both contend that using LLMs constitutes fair use. OpenAI has said that regurgitating work “is a rare bug.” Microsoft, in a September filing, says that expert analysis found that Copilot rarely reproduces full sentences from news content used to ground the model, which it said, “hardly undermines the transformative purpose of LLM training.”
Wikimedia proposes a compromise. Scraping websites shouldn’t be considered copyright infringement, it argues, and using copyrighted works to pre-train LLMs without a license should constitute fair use when they provide “something new and different from the original sources,” according to a blog post. But if these models pull copies of material in response to user queries, then deliver it to users “while supplanting readers’ engagement with those original works,” that should require a license. The key difference is that in the latter case, AI output is simply substituting for the original work, and doesn’t transform it enough to qualify as fair use.
In those cases, Wikimedia says that AI companies should respect licensing requirements to use such information. For Wikipedia, this would mean crediting the original source of information under its Creative Commons license, which also requires “any remix or adaptations” to remain under that same license.
“We are taking a position in this case to defend the free and open human knowledge that Wikipedia depends on,” Wikimedia CEO Bernadette Meehan says in a statement. “Expanding access to knowledge through AI is a powerful goal, but it must respect the people, contributors, and communities that make reliable knowledge possible. Finding this balance is both a mutual benefit and a shared responsibility for the entire information ecosystem.”
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Atlas. All rights belong to the original author.