Federal Judge Rules Anthropic's AI Training on Books Falls Under Fair Use, Paving Way for Legal Precedent

A federal judge has ruled in favor of Anthropic in a lawsuit over the use of published books to train AI models without authors' permission. Federal Judge William Alsup's decision marks the first time that the courts have recognized the legality of such practices under the fair use doctrine, a critical provision of copyright law that has not been updated since 1976. This ruling is a significant setback for authors, artists, and publishers who have filed numerous lawsuits against companies like OpenAI, Meta, Midjourney, and Google. These cases often hinge on how judges interpret the fair use doctrine, which allows for certain uses of copyrighted material without the need for permission. Factors considered include the purpose of the use (such as parody or education), whether the use is for commercial gain, and how transformative the derivative work is compared to the original. Anthropic's defense in the case, Bartz v. Anthropic, rested on the argument that training AI models on copyrighted books falls under fair use. Judge Alsup agreed, stating that the transformative nature of training language models with diverse datasets justifies the use. However, the court will still hold a trial regarding Anthropic's creation and maintenance of a "central library" of books, many of which were allegedly downloaded from pirate sites. “We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages,” Judge Alsup wrote in his decision. “That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for theft but it may affect the extent of statutory damages.” This nuanced ruling suggests that while AI companies may find some protection under the fair use doctrine for training their models, they could still face legal consequences for improperly obtaining and storing copyrighted materials. This case sets a precedent that could influence future rulings in similar disputes, potentially tipping the scales in favor of tech companies over creatives. However, the final chapter in these legal battles is far from written, and the broader implications of the decision will become clearer as other cases make their way through the courts.