){kind=logo}
Recent court decisions in two highly publicized generative artificial intelligence (gen AI) cases favored the platforms and may start to reduce the concerns over using gen AI. But content owners and those working for them should still understand the legal ambiguity of gen AI and, regardless of legal limitations, be wary of how gen AI use might affect the authenticity and perception of their brands.
In Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, 13 authors sued Meta, alleging it downloaded their copyrighted books without permission to train its gen AI platform. A federal court found the training was a fair use but limited the ruling to the specific facts of the case.
Then, in Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, another group of authors sued over the use of a gen AI platform to train its model. This different court found that training on lawfully acquired books is permissible under fair use, as it does not compete with or substitute for the original works. But it denied summary judgment on claims involving the use and retention of potentially unauthorized copies, which will proceed to trial.
In this AdAge article, Brian Heidelberger, chair of Loeb & Loeb’s Advertising, Marketing & Promotions practice, unpacks how these two recent court rulings favoring gen AI platforms may ease some legal concerns around copyright infringement—but warns that brand owners and creators must still proceed with caution. While the decisions suggest that training AI on copyrighted works could be fair use in certain contexts, unresolved legal risks remain, particularly around unauthorized content acquisition and the broader reputational impact of AI-generated material on brand authenticity.
To read the full article, please visit AdAge’s website (subscription may be required).
In Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, 13 authors sued Meta, alleging it downloaded their copyrighted books without permission to train its gen AI platform. A federal court found the training was a fair use but limited the ruling to the specific facts of the case.
Then, in Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, another group of authors sued over the use of a gen AI platform to train its model. This different court found that training on lawfully acquired books is permissible under fair use, as it does not compete with or substitute for the original works. But it denied summary judgment on claims involving the use and retention of potentially unauthorized copies, which will proceed to trial.
In this AdAge article, Brian Heidelberger, chair of Loeb & Loeb’s Advertising, Marketing & Promotions practice, unpacks how these two recent court rulings favoring gen AI platforms may ease some legal concerns around copyright infringement—but warns that brand owners and creators must still proceed with caution. While the decisions suggest that training AI on copyrighted works could be fair use in certain contexts, unresolved legal risks remain, particularly around unauthorized content acquisition and the broader reputational impact of AI-generated material on brand authenticity.
To read the full article, please visit AdAge’s website (subscription may be required).
