Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, gives a speech during the annual Meta Connect event, at the headquarters of the main company at Menlo Park, California, September 25, 2024.
Orbegoozo Manuel Reuters
Finish On Wednesday, he won a group of 13 authors in a serious copyright matter regarding the company's artificial intelligence model, but the judge explained that his ruling was limited to this case.
The US District Judge Vince Chhabria stood on the meta side that the use of books by the company to train large language models or LLM is protected on the basis of the doctrine of permitted American copyright.
Lawyers representing the plaintiff, including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, claimed that the meta had violated national copyright because the company did not seek permission from the authors to use their books for the company AI.
In particular, Chhabria said that “it is generally illegal to copy protected work without permission”, but in this case the plaintiffs did not present the convincing argument that the use of books by meta for the training of Lama caused “market damage”. Chhabria wrote that the plaintiffs presented two defective arguments about their case.
“In this album, Meta overcame the mindless argument of the reasons that its copying causes or threatens significant market damage,” Chhabria said. “This conclusion can be in considerable tension with reality.”
The judge wrote that the finish of the finish involving “copying the work for a transformation purpose” is protected by the doctrine of permitted use.
“We appreciate today's decision from the court,” said Meta spokesman in a statement. “AI Open Source models supply transformation innovations, performance and creativity for natural persons and companies, and the permitted use of proprietary materials is important legal framework to build this transformational technology.”
Although there may be important arguments that the practice of training Meta Data has a negative impact on the book market, the plaintiff did not state accordingly, as the judge wrote.
Lawyers representing the plaintiff did not answer the request for comment.
Despite this, Chhabria noticed several defects in defense of the finish, including the view that “public interest” would be “badly separated” if the company and other companies were forbidden to “use protected text as training data without paying.”
“The finish line seems to suggest that such a ruling will stop the development of LLM and other generative artificial intelligence technologies in its paths,” Chhabria wrote. “It's nonsense.”
The judge left the door open to other authors to bring similar authorities related to AI against the finish line, saying that “in the great plan of things the consequences of this ruling are limited.”
“This is not a collective action, so the ruling only affects the rights of these thirteen authors – not countless others whose works Meta used their models,” he wrote. “And as it should be clear, this decision does not mean that the use of materials protected by meta for training language models is lawful.”
In addition, Chhabria has noticed that there is still an expected, separate claim that the reason claim that the finish “could illegally spread their work (via torrerent)”.
At the beginning of this week a The federal judge ruled This AnthropicUsing books for training You have a model Claude was also “transformational”, thus meeting the doctrine of the permitted use. Despite this, the judge said that Anthropic must face the trial on the allegations that he had downloaded millions of pirate books to train AI. “
“This Anthropic later bought a copy of the book that the internet has previously stolen, will not release her from liability for theft, but can affect the scope of statutory damage,” the judge wrote.
TO WATCH: The meta is repulsive of WhatsApp's ban on devices used by the House of Representatives.
