Wikimedia urges courts to split AI training from chatbot copying
Original title: Wikipedia’s operator says a bad AI copyright ruling could threaten the open web
In an amicus brief, Wikimedia says unlicensed LLM pre-training can be fair use, but query answers that replace the source need a license.
The Wikimedia Foundation filed an amicus brief Friday in publisher lawsuits against OpenAI and Microsoft, including a case brought by The New York Times, and took neither side. It argues that scraping and unlicensed pre-training should be fair use when models add something new, while answers that copy works and replace reader visits should require a license. Wikimedia says Wikipedia is a major training source, that chatbots siphon visitors, and that tools such as ChatGPT reproduce Creative Commons text without following license terms. It also says LLMs help editors spot vandalism, copyright violations and doxxing.
Unconfirmed: Effects on Wikipedia and the open web are Wikimedia’s legal arguments, not court findings.
- The brief was filed Friday and sides with neither publishers nor the AI companies.
- Wikimedia says a publisher win could let rights holders gatekeep transformative uses.
- It says an AI-company win could let firms ignore licensing and fragment knowledge.
- Creative Commons terms, it argues, require credit and the same license on adaptations.
- Stephen LaPorte and CEO Bernadette Meehan both warned a blunt ruling could hurt free knowledge.
- Organizations
- Wikimedia FoundationThe New York Times
From the original article
3 min read at theverge.com
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.
By Lauren Feiner · theverge.com
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.