Anthropic Bags Key 'Fair Use' Win For AI Platforms, But Faces Trial Over Damages For Millions of Pirated Works (aifray.com) 74
A federal judge has ruled that Anthropic's use of copyrighted books to train its Claude AI models constitutes fair use, but rejected the startup's defense for downloading millions of pirated books to build a permanent digital library.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted partial summary judgment to Anthropic in the copyright lawsuit filed by authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson. The court found that training large language models on copyrighted works was "exceedingly transformative" under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Anthropic downloaded over seven million books from pirate sites, according to court documents. The startup also purchased millions of print books, destroyed the bindings, scanned every page, and stored them digitally.
Both sets of books were used to train various versions of Claude, which generates over $1 billion in annual revenue. While the judge approved using books for AI training purposes, he ruled that downloading pirated copies to create what Anthropic called a "central library of all the books in the world" was not protected fair use. The case will proceed to trial on damages related to the pirated library copies.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted partial summary judgment to Anthropic in the copyright lawsuit filed by authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson. The court found that training large language models on copyrighted works was "exceedingly transformative" under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Anthropic downloaded over seven million books from pirate sites, according to court documents. The startup also purchased millions of print books, destroyed the bindings, scanned every page, and stored them digitally.
Both sets of books were used to train various versions of Claude, which generates over $1 billion in annual revenue. While the judge approved using books for AI training purposes, he ruled that downloading pirated copies to create what Anthropic called a "central library of all the books in the world" was not protected fair use. The case will proceed to trial on damages related to the pirated library copies.
Piracy leads innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If they weren't uploading torrents while doing the downloading I assume their (non punitive) damage is limited to the cost of the book (memory is weak on this, but I believe the statutory damage comes from distributing illegal copies).
I assume they get away with paying what they would have anyway, plus court fees (since the actual use of the copy was fair use).
Re: Piracy leads innovation (Score:2)
It's how Hollywood started. Nowadays if you even look at a movie wrong, they'll sue. To make matters worse, if you're a California taxpayer (like me) you're now being forced, under penalty of prison, to donate part of your income to Hollywood.
https://www.latimes.com/entert... [latimes.com]
So the "workers" (mostly already wealthy writers and actors) successfully priced themselves out of the market, and campaigned for politicians to regulate the studios away. Obviously the taxpayer's fault.
So even if you don't look at the
Re: (Score:1)
if you're a California taxpayer (like me) you're now being forced, under penalty of prison, to donate part of your income to Hollywood.
When you say "forced to donate", do you mean you have to pay your taxes? That's how taxes work. It's not a la carte.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you like giving multimillionaire movie producers free money, but I sure as shit don't. I don't know about you but, when I looked at my last pay statement, on the YTD line there were two numbers that kind of irked me:
Deductions: $77k
Taxes: $79k
Net pay: $17k
That's what happens when you get taxed on money you never even had, and may never even see. And even if you never do see it, FTB ain't giving anything back. May as well have just set that money on fire, especially with the crap Hollywood produces tod
AI companies are RIPPING OFF Artists and Writers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically we'll have to keep suing tech companies before the courts will recognize what is going on. And these companies are so loaded with cash that some of them are buying nuclear reactors to power their data centers. So imagine the kind of legal team that kind of money buys.
Re: (Score:3)
Thomas Babbington Macaulay got it right way back in 1841: https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyright/ [thepublicdomain.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are a real end-stage capitalist!
Scummy (Score:4, Insightful)
"I need the content of your book for AI but I won't pay you $14 for a copy."
That's scummy.
Not the ones they bought and scanned.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not against fixing Copyright law to distinguish between me and OpenAI, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Anthropic may still win this one. They did not make the copy, the sender did.
I'm not certain that's true in a legal sense. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case that demonstrated that a person who downloaded a copyrighted material was exonerated because it was actually the host that made the copy, not the recipient. Making a technical argument is all well and good but it's an uphill battle when precedent runs against you. Furthermore, if Anthropic did make that argument, and somehow won, the new precedent would be that anyone can download anything and the liability is solely
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have a fair use, or a license, it is illegal for you to download something I own the copyright to, and I can sue you for the value, including statutory damages, of that copy, even if you copied it directly from me.
Re: (Score:2)
Mine can not logically do so without having something to make a copy of first.
You're a moron- do you think the copyright violation stops after the first offender?
Both parties made a copy. This is settled law.
People watching unauthorized streams are not sued because the monetary damages are far less.
Distributing carries what are called statutory damages- which can be as high as $50k per work.
Merely downloading limits you to actual damages, or the base value of what you pirated.
You have no idea what in the fuck you're talking about, and I suggest you go slink away into a hole ra
Re: (Score:2)
But I also want to take a moment out of my day to laugh at your logic skills.
I'll find out the hard way if I ever take that "nonsense" into a courtroom?
Your position:
Downloading is legal.
Uploading is illegal.
My position:
Downloading is illegal.
Uploading is illegal.
What fucking scenario can you concoct where your position is in more legal jeopardy than my position?
Fucking dumb people on the internet, man.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it does it by making copies.
Fortunately, that copying is ruled to be fair use now.
Re: (Score:2)
The mere act of download (copying to your disk or RAM) is a copy for copyright purposes.
What you are doing is confusing statutory crimes with liability for the copyright infringement.
If you're distributing copyrighted works, the copyright holder, and the government will come after you.
If you're downloading copyright works, the copyright holder can come after you.
Re: (Score:2)
Downloading is, because it indeed requires a copy to be made.
The following quote from you that you are trying to defend:
They did not make the copy, the sender did.
Is false.
Both parties made a copy.
You are incapable of downloading something without making a copy. It is quite literally, and legally, impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
They did not make the copy, the sender did.
No. They is not how copyright infringement works.
Anthropic made a copy (from sender, to some local medium, be it RAM or disk) and that is an infringement upon the copyright of the copyright holder for that work.
You seem to be implying that if the copyright holder has their software on their server, and you find a way to take it, no copyright has been infringed upon- but you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Start your education here. [copyright.gov]
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
You done, dumbfuck?
Re: (Score:2)
The illegality of downloading for personal use hinges on me making a copy on my personal device.
Not quite that simple. Fair use is a consideration for every copy made, period.
Was your copy made to deprive the owner of money they would have otherwise made? Then no, it's not fair use, any any copy you make for that purpose is illegal.
Was your copy made for a use that's protected under fair use? Then any copy you make for that purpose is legal.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically the copy they made off the pirate site: illegal (to avoid paying)
The internal copies they made after that (or from purchased and scanned books): legal and fair use?
Re: (Score:2)
But specifically- copies made for the purpose of training their model.
There are still internal copies that could be made of legitimately acquired stuff that would also not be fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
The law is outdated = tough (Score:3)
The law is the law until it is changed. If you dont like the law then lobby to Congress to change it. Companies that break the law should be bankrupted via litigation. Innovation is not an excuse. We all know that wonâ(TM)t happen in the tiered justice system in the USA
Re: (Score:2)
What if they had bought the books? (Score:3)
I wonder, had Anthropic bought a copy of all of those books, e-book or physical, and then done the same, would that have been considered fair use? $1bil of profits can buy a lot of books, and would constitute several years worth of revenue-creating value.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder, had Anthropic bought a copy of all of those books, e-book or physical, and then done the same, would that have been considered fair use?
Yes.
What's at question here is how the data is used to train the model. Regardless of how it's acquired, the training is fair use, because it's highly transformative.
There are other considerations on top of that- but acquisition isn't one of them.
If you borrow a book from a friend, feed it into a hashing algorithm, you doing that, while technically in violation of copyright, is fair use.
Re: What if they had bought the books? (Score:1)
Also at issue is that copyright holders aren't wanting to be paid for copying their works, they're wanting control of how it's used after the sale, which they are not legally entitled to. That's not what "sell" means. It's legally no business of theirs whether I use their art in an unapproved manner after it's sold to me, whether that's training a LLM or squashing a spider.
Re: (Score:2)
Also at issue is that copyright holders aren't wanting to be paid for copying their works, they're wanting control of how it's used after the sale, which they are not legally entitled to. That's not what "sell" means. It's legally no business of theirs whether I use their art in an unapproved manner after it's sold to me, whether that's training a LLM or squashing a spider.
Incorrect. Sale does not remove copyright.
i.e., if you buy a picture, you are not granted license to produce additional copies of it.
You have a fairly low UID, I'm a bit surprised this concept is foreign to you.
Re: (Score:2)
they're wanting control of how it's used after the sale, which they are not legally entitled to.
The only thing I see them wanting control over is how copies are used, which they are legally entitled to.
For example, you may think you have an unlimited right to format shifting. The fact is- you do not. Your fair use to do so stops when you deprive the copyright holder of revenue.
Every copy you make, even for personal use, is covered by copyright, because it's still a copy.
That copyright is not relinquished upon sale. Ergo, they really do have a say
Re: (Score:2)
To summarize the analysis that now follows, the use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. And, the digitization of the books purchased in print form by Anthropic was also a fair use but not for the same reason as applies to the training copies. Instead, it was a fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies. However, Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library. Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic’s piracy.
Maybe you know better than a judge highly experienced in complex IP law?
Re: (Score:2)
That we're discussing fair use is the proof that the works are still bound by copyright- even for the personal copies.
Current Supreme Court precedent says that the purpose and character of digitization, or format shifting, is what determines its fair use. Fair use is an allowed enhancement of yours rights to use something that is bound by copyright. The Judge and I don't disagree in the slightest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they're wanting control of how it's used after the sale, which they are not legally entitled to.
Actually they do. If you buy a copy of a book does that give you the right to turn it into a screenplay and make a movie from it? No it does not. you would need to license the work from the author for that purpose.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe so. Using the entire works for a commercial enterprise should never be considered fair use.
Everyone talking about doomsday scenarios (Score:1)
As an overall rule judges side with property. The old saying, possession is 9/10 of the law has a real meaning but it also has an underlining meaning that whoever has the most money is going to get preferential treatment by our court system.
AI is worth trillions. As a technology the possibility of it replacing workers means that it is the single most profitable thing our species has ever produced.
Mind you I
Re: (Score:2)
Can you take your copy of Catch 22 and turn it into a screen play for a movie with not further consideration to the author?
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon my poor typing, I am going blind
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If it sufficiently transformative: YES
So are you saying that authors will have to examine every work created by Claude to see if it is sufficiently transformative to be legal under copyright law? It seems like this is going to be impossible for authors as AI slop creates an endless supply of low-profit material (only selling, for example, a few dozen copies of a book), many of which might infringe but might also only earn a few dollars of profit.
It's death by a thousand small cuts for authors and content creators.
Re: (Score:2)
Judge Alsup is unequivocal in his summary judgment on this point (emphasis added):
To summarize the analysis that now follows, the use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. And, the digitization of the books purchased in print form by Anthropic was also a fair use but not for the same reason as applies to the training copies. Instead, it was a fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies. However, Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library. Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic’s piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's death by a thousand small cuts for authors and content creators."
This is a replay of the debate held about player pianos over a hundred years ago.
Yes. This scenario is possible.
Re: (Score:1)
Surprisingly illogical (Score:2)
Judge Alsup has a good understanding of copyright law -- he presided over Oracle's lawsuit against Google about Java and Android -- so it's surprising that he made this ruling, which apparently ignores all the unauthorized copies made while training an LLM. The same logic implies that, for example, a very common clause in licenses for industry standards (that the license may not put a copy on networked storage) is unenforceable because that kind of copy is fair use for reading the standard.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be suggesting that the significant difference is whether a copy of a work is published, but copyright laws limit reproduction even without publication or public display/performance. This is basic black-letter law, and is why federal statutes explicitly authorize various copies of software (for backup purposes, or running software for purposes of maintaining or repairing a computer, as examples).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
To summarize the analysis that now follows, the use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. And, the digitization of the books purchased in print form by Anthropic was also a fair use but not for the same reason as applies to the training copies. Instead, it was a fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies. However, Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library. Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic’s piracy.
The sort of copying you appear to be talking about, namely ephemeral "copies" made in computer memory etc,. has long been established as fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
The sort of copying you appear to be talking about, namely ephemeral "copies" made in computer memory etc,. has long been established as fair use.
I have no idea where you got that idea, but it is 100% wrong. MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) held that such ephemeral copies are not fair usea nd were not implicitly authorized. This led to the creation of 17 USC section 117 to legally authorize those copies -- as I said. But that authorization is limited to copying software for specific purposes, so it doesn't help Anthropic here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your concession of being 100% wrong is accepted.
Re: (Score:2)
Pay attention, Zuck, because you are next (Score:2)
Anthropic asked for early summary judgment in the case—and their gamble paid off, almost. Judge Alsup agreed that training LLMs and digitizing legally purchased books constituted fair use. But when it came to the pirated library they compiled and retained for “research purposes,” the judge was unequivocal: there is no fair use defense for mass copyright infringement cloaked in scientific pretensions. That part of the case survives—and so does the potential for a high-stakes class-act
Transformative seems to me to be the key finding (Score:2)
The biggest win for AI companies is the ruling that AI is "highly transformative". If that holds then there's no ambiguity regarding "derivative works" vs "transformative works" and that means that we can use source code or movies generated by AI without being worried that the original authors of the works the AI was trained on will come and get us for copyright infringement.
I generally agree with this stance, but am a bit worried about when AI "memorizes". For example it could dump out a verbatim implement