Generally speaking, companies are typically not allowed to utilize copyrighted content to educate their artificial intelligence (AI) systems without first obtaining consent or making a payment, according to the court. However, in the case of Sarah Silverman versus Meta, the court has determined that this specific lawsuit does not fall under those circumstances.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria supported Meta’s stance regarding a new legal matter: whether artificial intelligence (AI) companies can claim protection under fair use, a principle in copyright law that permits creators to utilize copyrighted works without a license, provided they don’t infringe on the original work. This is the second ruling this week favoring an AI company on this issue. Earlier in the week, another federal judge decided against authors in a different lawsuit, asserting that the company Anthropic had a strong legal argument for the legality of their training practices.
Nevertheless, Judge Chhabria emphasized that his decision should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the practice. The lawyers representing the authors deliberately opted against presenting certain arguments that he believed could strengthen their case. These unpresented arguments revolve around AI-generated works bearing such a striking resemblance to original works that they may directly compete with and potentially replace them indirectly, implying potential harm to the creators’ rights.
As a gamer, I can’t help but wonder if transformative training like LLM could possibly be considered fair use. It’s tough to envision using copyrighted books to create a tool that might rake in billions or trillions of dollars. This tool, in turn, could spawn an endless flood of competing works. If these works are numerous enough, they could potentially deal a significant blow to the market for those original books, which is something I can’t help but worry about. That’s what Chhabria wrote.
As a devoted follower, I’m thrilled about Wednesday’s court decision that deemed Meta’s use of books for training as exceptionally transformative. This means that their language model, Llama, is learning from authors’ works, enabling it to edit emails, write scripts, or even provide translation services – all thanks to this groundbreaking ruling!
The reasoning behind this situation is similar to that of U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who determined that in the case he’s managing, authors cannot prevent Anthropic from utilizing their works to train its technology if they have purchased the books. As any aspiring writer would understand, Anthropic’s AI tool employs these works not to replicate or replace them, but rather to generate something entirely new, as stated in the order.
As a devoted admirer, I’d like to clarify that just because a piece is deemed “transformative” doesn’t mean it’s exempt from copyright infringement. The final decision often depends on various aspects, among them being the potential impact in the market for the original work.
As a gamer, I’d say: In the game we call court, Meta pulled off a smart move to win. Their lawyers cleverly dodged the accusation of copying books to create a product by focusing on something else instead – how Meta using our books without permission for training could hurt the market for licensing our works. They argued that this was like someone stealing your game strategies and using them against you, which could be a winning move in this courtroom battle.
Imagine a situation where individuals leverage AI tools, such as ChatGPT or Claude, to produce vast quantities of text in significantly reduced time compared to manual writing. In this case, they might utilize these tools to write and market books, potentially rivaling publications that were previously used for training by companies like OpenAI or Anthropic.
Chhabria points out that it’s not hard to envision AI-written books overshadowing lesser-known titles or debut works. He suggests that AI books might not significantly impact the market for Agatha Christie’s novels, but they could potentially hinder a new Agatha Christie from gaining recognition and selling enough books to continue their writing.”
OR
“In his view, it’s quite conceivable that AI-created books might outshine less popular works or those by emerging authors. He proposes that these AI books wouldn’t likely affect the market for Agatha Christie’s books, but they could potentially prevent a new Agatha Christie from gaining visibility and selling enough books to keep writing.
The court suggested that legal representatives of the authors should have presented proof showing that Meta permits its users to produce works that challenge or rival Silverman’s memoir and Rachel Louise Snyder’s non-fiction books on domestic violence.
Another aspect of the decision: the idea that teaching people with books is fundamentally different from producing items that one individual can use to quickly and easily generate numerous competing books, requiring only a fraction of the time and creativity normally needed.
Over the last two years, numerous lawsuits have seen AI companies refute claims of unlawfully gathering vast amounts of creative content from the internet to train their systems. Their defense arguments sometimes appear less based on legal grounds and more on rhetorical ones: “If you rule against us, you’ll halt the progress of a revolutionary technology.”
To this assertion, the court countered, “The potential revenue these products could bring in, estimated to reach billions or even trillions of dollars, would not be an issue for the developing companies if they truly value the use of copyrighted works as they claim. They should find a means to remunerate the copyright owners accordingly.
Meta is dealing with a standalone accusation regarding charges that they unlawfully distributed authors’ books as part of an effort to pirate their works.
The authors, such as Silverman, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Richard Kadrey, are collectively represented by legal professionals including David Boies, Joseph Saveri, and Matthew Butterick, among others.
Read More
- Gold Rate Forecast
- Silver Rate Forecast
- Pi Network (PI) Price Prediction for 2025
- USD CNY PREDICTION
- USD MXN PREDICTION
- 10 Most Anticipated Anime of 2025
- EUR CNY PREDICTION
- Brent Oil Forecast
- Capcom has revealed the full Monster Hunter Wilds version 1.011 update patch notes
- Hero Tale best builds – One for melee, one for ranged characters
2025-06-26 02:55