Artificial intelligence developers won the marginal legal battles this week when the California judges spent the Antarbur (Anth.pvt) And meta (DeadLLM models (LLM) can be trained on copyright -protected books.
But the biggest war on the use of artificial intelligence developers of protected business has not yet ended.
Dozens of copyright holders sued the developers, on the pretext that developers should pay the rights holders before allowing the Truc Motory Intelligence Program to explain their work for profit. Rights also argue that the product of artificial intelligence cannot resemble their original works.
Rob Rosenberg, intellectual property lawyer with Tylauride legal strategies,, Which is called Tuesday’s bias alongside the developer of artificial intelligence, and is a “pioneering” precedent, but it must be seen as an editorial sulfo.
CEO of Antarbur Dario Ameudi at the Claude developer conference on May 22 in San Francisco. (Don Feria/AP Content Services for Anthropic) ·Associated Press
“The judges have just started implementing the law of copyright to artificial intelligence systems,” said Rosenberg.
In this ruling, California American boycott judge William Al Sap He said that Antarbur has used millions of books protected by copyrights to train different LLMS, including the famous Chatbot Clade.
However, the judge distinguished the books that a person paid from a pirated library of more than 7 million books that he also used to train Claude. As for the stolen materials, the judge said, Antarubor must face the claimants of the prosecutor’s authors that they have been violated with copyright.
In the most limited to rule Date of dead on Wednesday, California American boycott judge Vince Chapria He said that a group of 12 authors filed a lawsuit against the technology giant, including the comedian Sarah Silverman, submitted “wrong arguments” that prevented him from judging the violation. According to the authors, META used their copyright book books to train her great language model Lama.
Rulings are among the first rulings in the country that deal with emerging and unstable questions about the extent of LLMS’s ability to rely on protected business.
Comedian Sarah Silverman at the Red Carpet event in Los Angeles in 2023 (Reuters/Mike Blake) ·Reuters / Reuters
“There is no expectation of what will come out of the other side of these cases,” he said. Courtney Little SarrenoA partner in intellectual property with CM law and assistant professor at the Faculty of Law at Emory University.
Sarreno and other intellectual property experts said they expect the disputes to end the appeal of the US Supreme Court.
“I think it’s too early for Anthropor and others to take victory,” said Randolph Mai, president of the Freit Paul Foundation and former head of the Department of Administrative Practice of the American Lawyers Association.
The copyright law in the United States, as defined under the Copyright Law, is granted creative work exclusively to copies, distributions and public performances of their materials, according to Sarnow, including some derived and sequences of their original creativity.
She said that all large languages models in the absence of a license from the rights holders to use their copyrights, and steal them from the authors.
But under American law, a certain level of what can be considered a theft other than that is, in fact, an exception allowed under the doctrine of “fair use”.
This doctrine makes the legal use of materials without a license to suspend and criticize, refer to them for news and education reports, and convert them into something new and distinctive that serves a different purpose from the original model.
The Antarbur and Mita argued that their LLMS training on copyright -protected materials did not violate the copyright law because the models have transformed the content of the original authors into something new.
In his rule, Judge Alsup said that the use of Antarbur for books was “very transformed”, and therefore was eligible to use fair under the Copyright Law.
Rosenberg and Sarreno said it is too early to know how the courts will eventually judge in this case. In cases where “transformational” use is used as a defense, LLM defendants need to show that their use of copyright -protected materials has not disrupted the market for the original authors.
Judge Chapria criticized the ALSUP referee, describing it as an incomplete analysis for “brushing a side” of such concerns related to the market.
The Director of the Great Products Chris Cox at Llamacon 2025, AI Development Conference, on April 29 (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File) ·Associated Press
“Under the doctrine of fair use, the harm to the market for the work of copyright is more important than the purpose for which copies are made.”
Man still faces some other major legal challenges. Redait sued the company earlier in June. The lawsuit claims that the Antarbur, who intentionally, has the personal data for Reddit users without their approval and then put their data on Claud.
Anthrop also defends itself against a suit of music publishers, including the Global Music Collection (0VD.f), ABKCO, and Concord, claiming that the Antarbur violates the copyright of Bou Bou Bouressne, the Rolling Stones, and other artists who trained Claude on words for more than 500 songs.
The company faces more danger in the case in which the judge has decided that it must face claims from the authors that it violates the copyright by paying the price of a pirated library of more than 7 million books.
To violate copyright, deliberate violations can lead to legal fines of up to $ 150,000 per violation. If a person is found responsible for the abuse of 7 million books on his case in his case, then the maximum permissible penalties, although not to be imposed, can end in northern trillion dollars.
Three authors brought the case, and they asked the court to grant their request to follow up their claims as a collective procedure. The judge’s decision regarding the request for a separation certificate is suspended.
“The judge has not given Anthropor a free pass,” said Rosenberg.
