A federal judge has ruled in favor of Facebook parent Meta Platforms in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by a group of authors, who accused the company of using their works without permission to train its artificial intelligence (AI) technology.
The case, which was dismissed on Wednesday, is the second major copyright-related ruling from San Francisco’s federal court this week, involving the rapidly growing AI industry.
Judge’s Ruling and Its Limitations
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed the lawsuit filed by 13 authors, including well-known names such as Sarah Silverman, Jacqueline Woodson, and Ta-Nehisi Coates.
The judge stated that the authors “made the wrong arguments” and failed to support their claims sufficiently.
However, Chhabria was careful to note that this decision does not imply that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its AI systems is lawful.
In his written opinion, he emphasized that the ruling was specific to the plaintiffs’ case and does not address the broader legality of Meta’s use of copyrighted works.
“This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful,” Chhabria wrote, suggesting that the authors did not present their case in a way that would allow it to proceed to trial.
Authors Respond to the Decision
The authors’ legal team expressed disappointment with the ruling, arguing that it ignored the widespread violation of copyright laws by AI companies.
They noted that the court recognized the issue of AI companies using copyrighted works without permission, but still ruled in favor of Meta.
They argued that AI companies, such as Meta, are generally violating copyright laws by using these works without compensating the authors.
In a statement, the authors’ attorneys said, “We respectfully disagree with that conclusion.” Despite the loss in this case, the authors’ lawyers suggested that the ruling might still open the door for other authors to pursue similar lawsuits in the future.
Meta’s Response
Meta expressed its satisfaction with the court’s decision. The company argued that open-source AI models, like the ones it uses, drive significant innovation and creativity, with “fair use” of copyrighted materials being a critical legal framework for the technology’s development.
Meta’s statement emphasized that AI systems are transforming industries and that copyright law should not hinder technological progress.
Judge’s Concerns About AI and Copyright
Despite siding with Meta, Judge Chhabria’s ruling contained strong language suggesting that AI companies, including Meta, may be engaging in widespread copyright infringement.
He made it clear that he was not convinced by the argument that requiring companies to pay for copyrighted works would stifle technological advancements.
“These products are expected to generate billions, even trillions of dollars for the companies that are developing them,” Chhabria noted.
“If using copyrighted works to train the models is as necessary as the companies say, they will figure out a way to compensate copyright holders for it.”
Parallel Ruling in Another Case
In a related case earlier this week, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that AI company Anthropic did not break the law by training its chatbot, Claude, on millions of copyrighted books.
However, the company must still go to trial over claims that it unlawfully obtained these books from pirate websites.
While Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI chatbots was “fair use” under U.S. copyright law, he also pointed out that the companies involved must be careful about how they acquire these materials.
The ruling in the Meta case and the Anthropic case suggests that there are still significant legal challenges ahead for the AI industry regarding its use of copyrighted works.
Meta’s Use of Pirated Books
The authors in the Meta case accused the company of using pirated versions of their books to train its generative AI system, Llama.
Meta denied the allegations, arguing that Llama does not output the actual text from the books it was trained on, but instead generates new expressions based on patterns it has learned.
Meta’s legal team argued that the AI system is fundamentally different from the original works, claiming that Llama’s generated responses do not serve as substitutes for the authors’ books.
Meta also defended its practices by arguing that if it had obtained books from real libraries, the result would have been the same.
While Meta won the case, the judge’s opinion suggests that the battle over AI and copyright is far from over. Judge Chhabria made it clear that other authors who present their cases differently could still have a chance to pursue legal action.
As AI technology continues to develop and expand, the legal landscape around copyright infringement in the industry is likely to remain a contentious issue.
