Anthropic has recorded a big victory in a legal battle for the artificial and copyrighted intelligence models, a copyright that could resound on a dozen. Copyright lawsuits Wine through the legal system in the United States. A court has determined that anthropology is legal to train its AI tools on copyright works, saying that this behavior is protected by fair use theory, allowing illegal use of copyrighted documents under certain conditions.
The use of training is a reasonable use, high -class district judge William Alsup written In a summary command was given on Monday night. In the copyright law, one of the ways that courts determine whether the use of copyrighted works is not allowed to be reasonable is to consider whether the use is transformation or not, meaning it is not an alternative to the original work but something new. Problem technology is one of the most changes that many of us will see in our lives, Mr. Als Alup wrote.
Chris Mammen, a management partner at Womble Bond Dickinson, who focused on the Intellectual Property Law, said that this is the first big decision in the case of AI copyright to resolve the detailed use. Judge ALSUP found that the training of a LLM is using changes even when there is a significant memory. He especially refused to argue that what people did when reading and remembering is different from what the computer does when training LLM.
The case, a collective lawsuit made by book authors, who accused that anthropology violated their copyright by using their works without permission, was first submitted in August 2024 in the Court of the United States for Northern California.
Anthropic was the first artificial intelligence company to win in this battle, but the victory was accompanied by a large flower mark. While ALSUP realized that anthropology training was reasonable, he ruled that authors could take anthropometric to trial about their copyright infringement.
Although anthropology has finally switched to training copies purchased by books, it is still collected and maintained a huge library of smuggled documents. Anthropology has downloaded more than seven million copies of the book, not paying and holding these pirated copies in their library even after deciding that they will not use them to train their AI (all or again).
We will have a test of illegal copies used to create a central library of anthropology and results, conclusions.
Anthropology did not immediately answer the comments. The lawyer gave the plaintiffs refusing to comment.
Case, Bartz v. Anthropology The first time was submitted less than a year ago; Inhumane requires summary judgment on reasonable use in February. It is noteworthy that Alsup has more experience with reasonable use questions compared to the average federal judge, when the owner presided over the original trial. Google v. OracleA turning point of technology and copyright has finally gone before the Supreme Court.