There must be something in the air this week. The news pulls me back to how we use the works of others. There is significant coverage of the plagiarism allegations at Harvard. See Challenges of Service (December 2023). The Boston Globe put an interesting headline on it later that same day: "Harvard strains to find other words for ‘plagiarism’."
Billy Shakespear wrote, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." According to Poem Analysis, this "speaks to the power, or lack thereof, of names" or labels. A great line uttered in a much later movie played on that theme: "A rose by any other name would wither and die?" (Alan Swan, My Favorite Year, 1982). Does it matter what label we hang on actions, or is it the action itself that is critical to our analysis?
There will be a new President at Harvard in 2024. The depth of the challenges that have been created by the behavior now being revealed will not leave any alternative. The hypocrisy of that school's punishment of student plagiarism will not stand the scrutiny of the present. Some of the corporation board may likewise elect to move on in 2024. There are interesting articles on State of the Union, The Messenger, and Analying America. At its root, the turmoil and scandal are about using the published works of others without credit or compensation.
That discussion leads to how computer programs use the work of others. The New York Times filed a lawsuit against artificial intelligence on December 27, 2023: "for copyright infringement." This is not the first lawsuit alleging misuse. The article notes that some famous writers, such as John Grisham, have previously filed a lawsuit alleging "A.I. systems had absorbed tens of thousands of books."
That controversy involves some familiar plaintiff names and some authors that I have never heard of. Descriptions of it focus on "absorbed" material and use words such as "ingested." The theme seems to be that the AI programs have read the books, newspapers, and more. The Times notes that "The boundaries of copyright law often get new scrutiny at moments of technological change." There is seemingly evolution in the way society and the law deal with technology infringing on our existence.
The allegations mentioned by The New York Times are not seemingly about copying or republishing material. Instead, the programs have apparently been used "to train artificial intelligence technologies." Those "automated chatbots . . . now compete with the" Times "as a source of reliable information." That may be an overstatement as to the nature of both the chatbots and the Times.
In October, CNN reported that thousands of books were being read by AI programs. It says that "Books help generative AI systems with learning how to communicate information." The CNN article quotes authors and their thoughts on a computer reading their text and using that experience to learn how to better formulate ideas and communicate. The allegation is that such use of material to learn is copyright infringement.
What is copyright infringement? The federal government provides a definition on its website:
"What is copyright infringement? As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner."
The literalist in me fails to find anything in that definition that precludes reading a book (must I have Mr. Grisham's permission to read his book?). Perhaps I am defensive here, or even biased. You see, I have innocently, or in retrospect perhaps maliciously, read many books, articles, and even screenplays over the years. I read a great deal. With each piece I read, I better grasp language, structure, punctuation, and more (some might argue that in fact, I do not better grasp anything, ever, but I digress). It is fair to say that I learn with each manuscript I ingest. Am I violating Mr. Grisham's copyright because I read his book?
Some might suggest that books are written to be read. My old friend Horace Middlemier* has argued with me about that. He thinks books are meant to be displayed. He keeps many glass-front bookcases in his law office. They are full of great works he has purchased at yard sales and flea markets. There are law books and literary masterpieces.
I have known Horace many years and can assure you that (1) he has not read them, and (2) he would not understand War and Peace if he did wade through it. Horace displays the books so that clients, friends, and acquaintances will think he is intellectual (instead of ineffectual). He is using the books to mislead and to disguise himself. Much as that seems inappropriate, there is nothing in that copyright definition above that makes such use illegal or inappropriate.
If we learn from text, syntax, word use, punctuation, and beyond, are we violating copyright? If our communication and expression are influenced by the style and panache of writers, are we violating copyright? For that matter, in these actions are we plagiarizing? Go ask Harvard. If copyright protects the author from my growing or learning through exposure to their work, is it nonetheless acceptable under the "fair use" exception or the education exception? Or does education only apply to human education?
Are AI "seek(ing) to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism?” Or, is AI merely ingesting written material, reading it, in the very manner for which it was intended and published? The very manner for which it was sold?
The Pepperdine University Graphic shares some intriguing thoughts on creativity. It quotes Steve Jobs saying “Picasso had a saying, ‘Good artists copy, great artists steal.’” It accuses Andy Warhol, Quentin Tarantino, and Led Zeplin "drew inspiration from others." It reminds that Oscar Wilde perhaps said "That’s because imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," or perhaps he did not say that. Perhaps Oscar Wilde was "inspired" to that by someone else? Is creativity capable of protection? You can keep me from performing Beyonce songs, but can you prevent me from mimicking her style?
Perhaps publishing the appropriated thoughts of others without credit or attribution is plagiarism? Perhaps it is copyright infringement? Perhaps publishing is different than reading the thoughts of others and in the process coming to some similarity or even singularity with them? Are my dance moves appropriation or flattery (the answer cannot be flattery. Trust me, nothing in my moves is flattering in any context)
The courts will take time to work through whether reading a book to train or educate oneself is copyright infringement. With each speech I deliver or post I write, I am undoubtedly channeling style, organization, and word choice learned over thousands of hours enjoying the works of others. Their work product has indeed been ingested into my intellect, for better or worse, intentionally or not. As I communicate, with those acquired contributions, am I violating someone's copyright? Are we all?
A great poet of our time, Don Henley, noted "The lawyers dwell on small details," The End of the Innocence, Geffen 1989. He continued "Offer up your best defense, But this is the end, This is the end of the innocence."
I will watch the progress of the Harvard debacle, and I will learn in the process. I will watch the progress of the Grey Lady's challenge to computers reading its material and "learning." I will undoubtedly ingest a great deal of news on the topics in days to come. Will that change me? Will I learn? In doing so, am I violating copyrights? Or, am I consuming and growing in precisely the manner that the authors and producers intended?
In the end, the biggest question is perhaps whether people and computers are subject to the same laws, interpretations, and nuance. No fears, the lawyers will clear it all up in time.
*Horace Middlemier is a tool, a contrivance, an "everyman." He does not exist and never has. Any resemblance between Horace and any person real, imagined, expressed, or described is mere happenstance and coincidence. His existence is likely the result of the author's ingesting and extrapolating of the works of some other writer long ago and long forgotten. For any offense or insult felt by any author regarding my employment of this tool, I apologize.