Judge Rules Summaries Are Copyright Infringement Because Common Sense is Over Rated

Summaries are considered copyright infringement because an AI might do it… for some reason.

If there is one thing that repeats when it comes to the history of innovation and intellectual property law, it’s that the second you introduce the phrase “on a computer”, common sense and basic logic and reason tends to go flying out the window in a pretty quick fashion.

Take, for instance, patent laws in the US. There’s a lot of activities that would have precisely zero shot at being a reasonable patent. Yet, the second you introduce the concept of “on a computer”, then, suddenly, basic every day tasks become totally legitimate grounds for a patent for reasons that really don’t make any sense.

For instance, if you are out of the office and you leave a sign saying that you’ll be back on your desk, there’s no way you would consider the idea something you can patent. It makes absolutely no sense. However, if it’s done on a computer, then a dumb bomb goes off and people can magically patent an out of office e-mail. That was the case in 2017 with IBM.

Another example would be the idea of storing a file in a folder. You get a paper document and you want to store it in a folder for organizational purposes. Again, this is not something you can patent and anyone with even the slightest knowledge on patent law will agree. Yet, you introduce the magic phrase “on a computer”, and everyone suddenly celebrates “let’s all make idiots of ourselves” day and grants a patent on storing files in folders because this is such a novel and unique concept for some reason.

Of course, patent law isn’t the only area of intellectual property law where people go full stupid when it comes to the phrase “on a computer”. Copyright law has examples of this as well. Recently, we were able to add to that list of examples.

Now, it goes without saying for anyone with even the slightest knowledge on copyright law that facts cannot be copyrighted. If someone says that water is wet, the fact that water is wet is not the exclusive property of that person that said that. The expression of it may be copyrighted (such as a recording of that person saying it), but it doesn’t mean that person can sue anyone else for saying that water is wet. That would be ridiculous.

Additionally, there is this thing in the US called “fair use”. Yes, a logo can be copyrighted and/or trademarked. Yet, if a journalist like myself is talking about that company and uses a small thumbnail of that logo while talking about that company, the act of using that logo is not copyright infringement. For one, it is being used for journalistic purposes. For another, it is a work that is transformative and the logo is being used for illustrative purposes.

Another aspect of “fair use” in the US is the ability to both quote and summarize material. For instance, if I play a particular game and write a review of it, I am free to summarize some of the plot points to offer a better understanding of said game. For instance, if I review a Super Mario game, I can talk about the plot by saying something along the lines of “Bowser has kidnapped Princess Peach and Mario intends on rescuing her”. I’m summarizing the content of that game. My summary does not replace the work and it is very easily transformative especially given that my work is written and the game is a completely different form of expression. It doesn’t detract from the sales of said game. If anything, it might encourage said sales of that game.

It goes without saying that fair use in the US has contributed greatly to the overall economy. It has resulted in a large increase in content that people can consume and enjoy. Summarizing content and even offering small snippets is not copyright infringement so long as certain guidelines are met.

Of course, the second you introduce “on a computer”, then basic common sense and reasoning is immediately chucked in the trash. That’s precisely what happened with a recent court ruling where a judge ruled that summarizing content is now copyright infringement. Why? Well, if an AI does it, then black is white, up is down, short is long, and summarizing content is infringing of course! From Techdirt:

A federal judge just ruled that computer-generated summaries of novels are “very likely infringing,” which would effectively outlaw many book reports. That seems like a problem.

The Authors Guild has one of the many lawsuits against OpenAI, and law professor Matthew Sag has the details on a ruling in that case that, if left in place, could mean that any attempt to merely summarize any copyright covered work is now possibly infringing. You can read the ruling itself here.

This isn’t just about AI—it’s about fundamentally redefining what copyright protects. And once again, something that should be perfectly fine is being treated as an evil that must be punished, all because some new machine did it.

But, I guess elementary school kids can rejoice that they now have an excuse not to do a book report.

To be clear, I doubt publishers are going to head into elementary school classrooms to sue students, but you never know with the copyright maximalists.

Sag lays out the details of what happened in this case:

Judge Stein then went on to evaluate one of the more detailed chat-GPT generated summaries relating to A Game of Thrones, the 694 page novel by George R. R. Martin which eventually became the famous HBO series of the same name. Even though this was only a motion to dismiss, where the cards are stacked against the defendant, I was surprised by how easily the judge could conclude that:

“A more discerning observer could easily conclude that this detailed summary is substantially similar to Martin’s original work, including because the summary conveys the overall tone and feel of the original work by parroting the plot, characters, and themes of the original.”

The judge described the ChatGPT summaries as:

“most certainly attempts at abridgment or condensation of some of the central copyrightable elements of the original works such as setting, plot, and characters”

He saw them as:

“conceptually similar to—although admittedly less detailed than—the plot summaries in Twin Peaks and in Penguin Random House LLC v. Colting, where the district court found that works that summarized in detail the plot, characters, and themes of original works were substantially similar to the original works.” (emphasis added).

To say that the less than 580-word GPT summary of A Game of Thrones is “less detailed” than the 128-page Welcome to Twin Peaks Guide in the Twin Peaks case, or the various children’s books based on famous works of literature in the Colting case, is a bit of an understatement.

Yikes. I’m sorry, but if you think that a 580-word computer-generated summary of a massive book is infringing, then we’ve lost the plot when it comes to copyright law. If it were, then copyright itself would need to be radically changed to allow for basic forms of human speech. If I see a movie and tell my friend what it was about, that shouldn’t implicate copyright law, even if it summarizes “the plot, characters, and themes of the original work.”

Yeah, seriously, what the actual fuck is up with this ruling? If facts can be copyrighted and summaries are infringing, then expect the whole system of free speech and copyright to completely collapse in pretty short order. Want to look up a word in a dictionary? Sorry, those makers got sued into bankruptcy for copyright infringement. Need to quickly look up information on a movie? Sorry, IMDB was forced offline thanks to ongoing threats of copyright infringement. Need to quickly look something up on Wikipedia? Yup, that site is gone too. Heck, literally everything on the internet, in print, or otherwise recorded is now basically copyright infringement in some form or another. Human knowledge would be massively crippled because of insanity like this.

It’s a seriously dumb ruling and a ruling that really should be overturned. I get that some people have irrational fears about AI, but seriously, how on earth do you defend a ruling like this in and sane sensible way? You honestly can’t. This is a completely absurd ruling, plain and simple.

Drew Wilson on Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook.