Meta Wins Copyright Battle Over AI Training; Judge Cites Weak Author Arguments

Meta Platforms has won a significant legal victory in a U.S. federal court after a judge ruled against a group of authors who claimed the company infringed their copyrights by using their books to train its artificial intelligence system, Llama. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, presiding in San Francisco, stated that the authors failed to present sufficient evidence that Meta’s AI training methods harmed the market for their work, which is essential to prove copyright infringement under U.S. law.

Though the ruling favored Meta, Judge Chhabria clarified that the decision does not mean AI training using copyrighted material is inherently legal. He criticized the plaintiffs’ legal strategy, saying they made the wrong arguments and failed to support their claims adequately. This decision contrasts with another ruling earlier in the week, where a different judge found that AI company Anthropic’s use of copyrighted material qualified as fair use.

The authors’ legal team, Boies Schiller Flexner, expressed strong disagreement with the ruling, accusing Meta of “unprecedented pirating” of creative works. Meanwhile, Meta welcomed the court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of fair use in developing transformative AI technologies. The case is part of a broader legal trend, as multiple lawsuits from authors, journalists, and creators have targeted AI companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic over similar issues.

Central to the dispute is the legal doctrine of fair use, which permits limited use of copyrighted works without permission under specific conditions. AI companies argue their systems study copyrighted material to create new and transformative content, a process they say qualifies as fair use. Opponents argue that such usage can lead to direct market competition, threatening creators’ incomes and undermining the creative industry.

Judge Chhabria acknowledged the broader concerns about AI’s impact on creative markets, noting that generative AI can quickly produce books, songs, and articles with minimal human input. This, he warned, could devalue human creativity and reduce incentives for original work. Despite expressing sympathy for these concerns, he emphasized that the plaintiff’s failure to build a strong legal case led to Meta’s courtroom victory, not a blanket endorsement of AI training on copyrighted material.

Source: Reuters