The idea of advocating AI training is still a transformative idea, and still regards Chambria’s ruling as a victory. “Judge Kanshiria ruled today that today’s bottom line ruled that training AI models for copyrighted materials are clearly transformative and that unproven market hazards are fair,” said Adam Eisgrau, senior director of AI, Creativity and Copyright Policy. “He doesn’t like to draw this conclusion because he introduces it in detail and is completely inconsistent with established fair use precedents in terms of market hazards. Market dilution is Malarkey.”
That’s capture. Chhabria painfully stressed that his ruling was based on a specific fact in this case, which allowed other authors to open doors to future copyright infringement: “In many cases, it is illegal to copy copyrighted works to train generated AI without being verified,” he wrote. “This means that in order to avoid liability for copyright infringement, these companies are often required to pay copyright holders the right to use their materials.”
“On the surface, it looks like a victory for the AI industry,” said Matthew Sag, a professor of law and artificial intelligence at Emory University, noting that Meta clearly did win when Chhabria recognizes that training AI models is transformative. “However, the court did very seriously believe that AI models trained on plaintiff’s books could “come in the market with images, songs, songs, articles, books, etc.” He may have taken it more seriously than the plaintiff, given that they did not prove any evidence on the issue.
“The court ruled that ‘feeding copyrighted works into AI companies of their models without permission from the copyright holder or paying for them’ is often a violation of the law,” Boies Schiller Flexner’s plaintiff attorney said in a statement. “However, despite the unprecedented record of pirating copyrighted works in Meta’s history, the court ruled that Meta was supported. We respectfully disagree with this conclusion.”
Meta’s team had a more sunny response. “We thank the court decision today,” Meta spokesman Thomas Richards said in a statement. “The open source AI model provides transformative innovation, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, so the rational use of copyright materials is an important legal framework for establishing such transformative technology.”
In other AI cases, the plaintiff is paying close attention to the results. “We are disappointed with this decision, but only in part,” said Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Society of Authors.
“The consequences of this ruling are limited in the grand plan of things. This is not a class action lawsuit, so the ruling will only affect the rights of these 13 authors, not other authors of the works countless others use to train their models,” Chhabria wrote. “And, as it should be clear now, this ruling does not represent the legitimate claim that meta-elements train their language models using copyrighted materials.”
