){kind=logo}
Two federal judges in the same Northern California district court have issued ground-breaking decisions in separate copyright infringement lawsuits brought by book authors against companies that developed generative artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs).
Although the judges agreed that Meta Platforms Inc. and Anthropic PBC’s use of the authors’ books to train LLMs hadn’t crossed the line of fair use, the decisions highlight risks associated with acquiring content without authorization, and the outcomes may be different for AI platforms that can generate output that is substantially similar to works on which they were trained. The judges also split on a new market dilution theory that could undermine the tech giants’ fair use arguments in future cases.
In this Bloomberg Law article, Loeb Litigation partner Tal Dickstein examines two pivotal federal court rulings that found tech companies’ use of copyrighted books to train LLMs qualifies as fair use. While the decisions favored Meta and Anthropic, they also raise critical questions about unauthorized content acquisition, AI-generated outputs and a potential new legal theory—market dilution—that could reshape the fair use analysis in future copyright infringement cases involving generative AI.
To read the full article, please visit Bloomberg Law’s website.
Although the judges agreed that Meta Platforms Inc. and Anthropic PBC’s use of the authors’ books to train LLMs hadn’t crossed the line of fair use, the decisions highlight risks associated with acquiring content without authorization, and the outcomes may be different for AI platforms that can generate output that is substantially similar to works on which they were trained. The judges also split on a new market dilution theory that could undermine the tech giants’ fair use arguments in future cases.
In this Bloomberg Law article, Loeb Litigation partner Tal Dickstein examines two pivotal federal court rulings that found tech companies’ use of copyrighted books to train LLMs qualifies as fair use. While the decisions favored Meta and Anthropic, they also raise critical questions about unauthorized content acquisition, AI-generated outputs and a potential new legal theory—market dilution—that could reshape the fair use analysis in future copyright infringement cases involving generative AI.
To read the full article, please visit Bloomberg Law’s website.
-
Partner