Last week saw the release of two court decisions in cases addressing the use of copyrighted material for training of artificial intelligence (AI) platforms, Bartz et al., v. Anthropic, and Kadrey et al., v. Meta. We asked the Chefs for their thoughts on these decisions and the potential impacts on publishers and authors. . . .
[Roy Kaufman] Of the 40-plus AI training cases in the US, we now have preliminary decisions in three. And have moved backwards in terms of clarity. To vastly oversimplify the results, training AI is non-transformative infringement (Thomson Reuters v Ross), training is transformative and mostly fair use with a major caveat (Bartz), or training is mostly not fair use– but was fair use in this case because the lawyers did not plead correctly (Kadrey).
[Rick Anderson] First, as to the “fair use” nature of using copyrighted texts to train AI large language models: it seems clear to me that such applications represent a transformative use of the copyrighted content.
[Todd Carpenter] My expectation is—and has been for some time—that these cases will drive the AI vendor community (or at least those with the resources) to seek content agreements with the publishing world as quickly and efficiently as possible.
| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |
