Nuked 
Hey followers! Today, we’ll dive into a fascinating legal win for tech giants in the realm of AI training and copyright law.
Recently, a federal judge sided with Meta in a lawsuit filed by 13 authors, including Sarah Silverman, who accused the company of illegally training its AI models on their copyrighted books. The judge, Vince Chhabria, issued a summary judgment — meaning he made a quick decision without a full trial — ruling in favor of Meta.
The court decided that Meta’s use of copyrighted works in this case qualified as “fair use,” making it legally acceptable. Interestingly, this ruling aligns with a similar case where a judge sided with Anthropic over AI training on books. These decisions seem to favor the tech industry’s stance that training AI on copyrighted content can be considered fair use.
However, the judge emphasized that this isn’t a blanket approval for all AI training activities. The decision was limited to the specifics of this case, particularly noting that Meta’s AI training was transformative — meaning it didn’t just copy the books but used them to develop new models. Also, the plaintiffs failed to prove that their works suffered market harm, which is crucial in copyright disputes.
Judge Chhabria also pointed out that the case’s scope was narrow, and similar cases involving other works, like news articles or films, could have different outcomes. The broader takeaway? Fair use in AI training is still a complex and evolving legal area, heavily dependent on individual case details.
In summary, Meta’s case sets a noteworthy precedent, but the legal landscape remains uncertain, especially as more lawsuits against AI training on various copyrighted materials emerge.
