I don’t find Cliff’s notes to be similar at all. They represent standalone short-form content written by authors that is a purchasable option alongside more in-depth options written by other (or at times the same) authors.
If Cliff’s notes were actually just AI summaries of specific books generated by an unrelated entity and presented in a way that allowed the reader to avoid purchasing the underlying content, that’d be a very different scenario.
In the linked example, YouTube is essentially doing the latter. The product launched in this thread sits in a greyer area I think, but still raises some questions about content ownership and how creators will react to these new kinds of tools and modes of consumption.
Whether or not it’s strictly legal is a different conversation than whether or not creators feel comfortable with these emerging options.
> Once its out there, they lose control of how people interact with it.
Sure. But they also have every right to choose to put it behind a paywall if new tools change the calculus that originally made publishing it publicly make sense.
If Cliff’s notes were actually just AI summaries of specific books generated by an unrelated entity and presented in a way that allowed the reader to avoid purchasing the underlying content, that’d be a very different scenario.
In the linked example, YouTube is essentially doing the latter. The product launched in this thread sits in a greyer area I think, but still raises some questions about content ownership and how creators will react to these new kinds of tools and modes of consumption.
Whether or not it’s strictly legal is a different conversation than whether or not creators feel comfortable with these emerging options.
> Once its out there, they lose control of how people interact with it.
Sure. But they also have every right to choose to put it behind a paywall if new tools change the calculus that originally made publishing it publicly make sense.