You will pay the anthropier

Antarubor will pay $ 1.5 billion to settle a lawsuit filed by a group of authors claiming that the artificial intelligence company has been diped by the copyright reserve illegally for its use in its training. Claude artificial intelligence models. The settlement was announced on August 29, as parties in the case foot A proposal with the Court of Appeal in the ninth American circle, indicating that they have reached an agreement.

“This historical settlement much exceeds any other known recovery of copyright. It is the first of its kind in the era of artificial intelligence,” CNET, Justin Nelson, told CNET. “This will provide a meaningful compensation for each category work and put a precedent that requires artificial intelligence companies to pay the owners of copyright. This settlement sends a strong message to AI and creators alike that taking of the copyright works is wrong.”

The settlement should still be approved by the court, which it can do in a hearing on Monday, September 8. The authors in the chapter can obtain about 3000 dollars per pirated work, according to their lawyer estimates. They expect the case to include at least 500,000 works, with Antarbur paying an additional $ 3,000 of any material added to the case.

“In June, the District Court issued a prominent ruling on the AI ​​Law on Development of Artificial Intelligence and Publishing Rights, and found that the Anthropor approach to training AI models constitutes fair use. If today, if approved, it will be approved, the remaining old claims for prosecutors will be resolved.” “We are still committed to developing safe systems of artificial intelligence that helps people and organizations to extend their capabilities, enhance scientific discovery, and solve complex problems.”

This settlement is the latest update in a series of legal moves and rulings between the artificial intelligence company and authors. Earlier this summer, Judge of the US Supreme Provincial Court William Sup rule Anthropor’s use of copyright -protected materials was justified as a fair use – a concept of copyright law that allows people to use copyright content without the permission of the rights holder for specific purposes, such as education. The ruling was the first time that the court stands for Amnesty International and said that its use of copyright -protected materials is qualified as fair use, although Alsup said that this may not be always correct in future issues.

Two days after the Antarbur victory, dead He won a similar case Under fair use.

Read more: We are all copyright. Why do you need to pay attention to AI and copyright

Alsup’s ruling also revealed that the Antarbur has acquired and destroyed thousands of books used systematically to wipe them in a private library and chopping to train artificial intelligence. This was the claim he recommended for a separate secondary trial that Anthropor decided to settle outside the court.

In collective lawsuits, the settlement conditions must be reviewed and approved by the court. “The settlement means that both groups” avoid cost, delay and uncertainty associated with more litigation in the case. “.

“The anthropologist can move forward with its work without being the first main Amnesty International platform to be in this case of copyright for trial.” “Prosecutors are likely to receive benefit from any financial or non -financial settlement periods sooner. If the case is met through trial and appeal, it may last for two or more years.”

---

Do not miss any non -biased technology content and laboratory -based reviews. Add cnet As a favorite Google source.

---

Will the settlement affect other copyright disputes?

Publishing rights are such tension between creators and artificial intelligence developers. Artificial intelligence companies pay hard for fair use because they wander in huge comprehensive areas of data to train their models and do not want to pay or wait for their license. without legislation How companies can develop and train artificial intelligence, such cases in court have become important to form the future of products that people use daily.

“The conditions for this settlement are likely to become a data point or a standard for future negotiations, and possibly settlements in other publishing rights from artificial intelligence,” said Mamamin. He added that each situation is different and needs its weight on its advantages, but it is still influential.

There are still major questions about how the copyright law is applied in the era of artificial intelligence. Just like the way we saw anthropor analysis in the aforementioned alsup in the case of Meta, each case helps to build a precedent directed legal handrails and green lights around this technology. The settlement will cancel this specific condition, but it does not give any clarity to the basic legal dilemmas raised by artificial intelligence.

“The remaining uncertainty in the law can open the door for another round of litigation,” said Maminan. “

For more, check out Our guide to understanding copyright in the era of artificial intelligence.