They appear to be quite oppressive.https://www.lehtoslaw.com

For those using ChatGPT, if anything you post is used in a lawsuit against OpenAI, OpenAI can send you the bill for the court case (attorney fees and such) whether OpenAI wins or loses.

Examples:

Attorney talking about their ToS (same link as post link): https://youtu.be/fOTuIhOWFXU?t=268

https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use 7. Indemnification; Disclaimer of Warranties; Limitations on Liability (a) Indemnity. You will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless us, our affiliates, and our personnel, from and against any claims, losses, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) arising from or relating to your use of the Services, including your Content, products or services you develop or offer in connection with the Services, and your breach of these Terms or violation of applicable law.

  • SpziEnglish
    2•1 year ago

    Let’s assume I post a screenshot of a ChatGPT session on social media, and OpenAI sues me for the content.

    Don’t they have to prove first that it actually is such a screenshot, and not a fake? It’s even easier with copied text.

    Somehow this rings strangely similar to copyright cases against OpenAI, now with reversed roles. Who owns the authorship, how can we tell?

    • @QuadratureSurferOPEnglish
      2•1 year ago

      Let’s assume I post a screenshot of a ChatGPT session on social media, and OpenAI sues me for the content.

      That hypothetical doesn’t have much to do with this indemnification clause. OpenAI wouldn’t be the one filing a lawsuit against you. They are the ones being sued by someone else who saw the screenshot you posted.
      OpenAI would just send you the bill once the case has been settled (because according to the ToS you agreed to defend them from lawsuits related to your use of ChatGPT).

      Don’t they have to prove first that it actually is such a screenshot, and not a fake?

      Yes, and during the whole process the prosecutor will force OpenAI to search through their logs/databases and turn over any evidence related to the case. It probably wouldn’t take long since the screenshot would probably include the prompt from the User and they would just have to search for that.

      Somehow this rings strangely similar to copyright cases against OpenAI, now with reversed roles. Who owns the authorship, how can we tell?

      So far the courts have ruled that AI can’t claim copyright to anything. The “prompter” could claim the copyright but they would also have to alter the output in some way to make it their own (at least as far as AI art is concerned, I assume it would be similar for copyright on text).