Âé¶¹ÊÓÆµ

Skip to content

Shelly Palmer - Another legal win for big AI

Plaintiffs failed to present a compelling argument that Meta’s copying caused market harm.
copyright-0525
The judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that Meta's Llama models produced outputs substantially similar to their copyrighted works.

Meta scored a in federal court this week. A lawsuit filed by 13 authors – including Sarah Silverman, Richard Kadrey and Christopher Golden – accusing Meta of copyright infringement was largely dismissed by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to show that Meta's Llama models produced outputs substantially similar to their copyrighted works. He wrote, “It is generally illegal to copy protected works without permission,” but noted the plaintiffs failed to present a compelling argument that Meta’s copying caused market harm.

The court ruled that Meta’s use of the books in this instance qualified as fair use, but only because the plaintiffs failed to present evidence of meaningful market harm. However, the ruling applies only to these thirteen authors. The broader issue of whether Meta’s training methods are lawful remains unresolved. Importantly, a separate claim that Meta may have unlawfully distributed these works during torrenting was not dismissed and will proceed.

This follows a string of legal wins for major AI developers. Earlier this week, Judge William Alsup ruled , allowing its use of copyrighted material to train Claude to proceed under fair use, while sending distribution-related claims to trial.

Judge Chhabria rejected Meta’s argument that public interest justified unauthorized use of copyrighted material. He called the idea that such rulings would halt AI development “nonsense,” writing that if copyrighted books are as valuable as Meta claims, companies will find a way to license them.

The ruling emphasized that fair use is a fact-specific doctrine. While Meta won this case, the judge noted that stronger claims and better evidence, particularly on market dilution, could yield different outcomes. He concluded: “These plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one.”

You know what they say: “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is a trend.”

As always, your thoughts and comments are both welcome and encouraged. -s

 

About Shelly Palmer

Shelly Palmer is the Professor of Advanced Media in Residence at Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and CEO of The Palmer Group, a consulting practice that helps Fortune 500 companies with technology, media and marketing. Named  he covers tech and business for , is a regular commentator on CNN and writes a popular . He's a , and the creator of the popular, free online course, . Follow  or visit . 

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks