Post

WIRED
@wired.com

A court has determined that it was legal for Anthropic to train its AI tools on copyrighted works, arguing that the behavior is shielded by the “fair use” doctrine, which allows for unauthorized use of copyrighted materials under certain conditions.

wired.comAnthropic Scores a Landmark AI Copyright Win—but Will Face Trial Over Piracy ClaimsWhile the startup has won its "fair use" argument, it potentially faces billions of dollars in damages for allegedly pirating over 7 million books to build a digital library.
WIRED
@wired.com

“Judge Alsup found that training an LLM is transformative use—even when there is significant memorization,” says one IP lawyer. The ruling may reverberate across the dozens of other AI copyright lawsuits winding through US courts.

wired.comAnthropic Scores a Landmark AI Copyright Win—but Will Face Trial Over Piracy ClaimsWhile the startup has won its "fair use" argument, it potentially faces billions of dollars in damages for allegedly pirating over 7 million books to build a digital library.

5 reposts35 likes

WIRED
@wired.com

Anthropic is the first AI company to win this kind of battle, but the victory comes with an asterisk, with the judge in the case ruling that the authors involved in the suit could take Anthropic to trial over pirating their works. Read the full story: www.wired.com/story/anthro...

wired.comAnthropic Scores a Landmark AI Copyright Win—but Will Face Trial Over Piracy ClaimsWhile the startup has won its "fair use" argument, it potentially faces billions of dollars in damages for allegedly pirating over 7 million books to build a digital library.
ella ≽^•⩊•^≼
@catgirlkatsuki.bsky.social

It’s not for anyone else. That’s why archive of our own (a fanfic archive with lawyers to protect works from copyright take downs) is so hot on authors linking to any donation site or asking for money. It’s against TOS basically cos their legal defence is “no one makes money=fair use”

JoeBIn818
@joebin818.bsky.social

The laws that we make regarding copyright are about consumption of said content and those laws are written for people and not machines. Machines are consuming the content. Machines have no legal standing. The law should not apply to a machine.

Gnarlygeek (aka Tom)
@gnarlygeek.bsky.social

This is far from over. There will be appeals in the US and they aren't as likely to even win at this level in the EU. An EU failure will be catastrophic, preventing use of any model trained under this stupid US ruling in the EU and probably elsewhere in the world.