Publishers and Law Professors Back Authors in Meta AI Copyright Battle
(Tuesday April 15, 2025 @11:20AM (msmash)
from the whose-ownership-is-it-anyway dept.)
- Reference: 0177026237
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/04/15/0519205/publishers-and-law-professors-back-authors-in-meta-ai-copyright-battle
- Source link:
Publishers and law professors have filed amicus briefs [1]supporting authors who sued Meta over its AI training practices, arguing that the company's use of "thousands of pirated books" fails to qualify as fair use under copyright law.
The [2]filings [PDF] in California's Northern District federal court came from copyright law professors, the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), Copyright Alliance, and Association of American Publishers. The briefs counter earlier support for Meta from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and IP professors.
While Meta's defenders pointed to [3]the 2015 Google Books ruling as precedent, the copyright professors distinguished Meta's use, arguing Google Books told users something "about" books without "exploiting expressive elements," whereas AI models leverage the books' creative content.
"Meta's use wasn't transformative because, like the AI models, the plaintiffs' works also increased 'knowledge and skill,'" the professors wrote, warning of a "cascading effect" if Meta prevails. STM is specifically challenging Meta's data sources: "While Meta attempts to label them 'publicly available datasets,' they are only 'publicly available' because those perpetuating their existence are breaking the law."
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/11/law-professors-side-with-authors-battling-meta-in-ai-copyright-case/
[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.415175/gov.uscourts.cand.415175.525.0.pdf
[3] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/10/16/1727233/google-books-wins-again
The [2]filings [PDF] in California's Northern District federal court came from copyright law professors, the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), Copyright Alliance, and Association of American Publishers. The briefs counter earlier support for Meta from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and IP professors.
While Meta's defenders pointed to [3]the 2015 Google Books ruling as precedent, the copyright professors distinguished Meta's use, arguing Google Books told users something "about" books without "exploiting expressive elements," whereas AI models leverage the books' creative content.
"Meta's use wasn't transformative because, like the AI models, the plaintiffs' works also increased 'knowledge and skill,'" the professors wrote, warning of a "cascading effect" if Meta prevails. STM is specifically challenging Meta's data sources: "While Meta attempts to label them 'publicly available datasets,' they are only 'publicly available' because those perpetuating their existence are breaking the law."
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/11/law-professors-side-with-authors-battling-meta-in-ai-copyright-case/
[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.415175/gov.uscourts.cand.415175.525.0.pdf
[3] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/10/16/1727233/google-books-wins-again
In Today's News For Nerds... (Score:2)
by SlashbotAgent ( 6477336 )
Water is wet!
MetaBorg .. (Score:3)
by Mirnotoriety ( 10462951 )
Despite claims to the otherwise A.I companies vaccuum up other peoples data and exploit it to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
by DamnOregonian ( 963763 )
I'm not sure anyone is claiming otherwise. The question is really whether or not it's legal.
The privacy rapists become.... (Score:3)
... the content rapists.
& to the easily triggered Meta[stasize] employ (Score:2)
[1]Here ya go. [slashdot.org]
[1] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16702386&cid=60258742
Re: (Score:2)
Elon and Dorsey are both chatting about 'delete all IP law'
If people thought tariffs were disruptive... Boy howdiee wait until there are no patents, or copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
> like in china? they seem to do fine stealing the worlds IP
Exactly - no IP laws here would mean you can kiss things like the movie/content industry (and all its jobs) goodbye; there won't be any incentive to produce anything if you can't secure rights to it.