The incident took place yesterday, when the filing arose at the US District Court for the Northern District of California. This is where Meta was called out on its defense claims for fair use. Many referred to this as an overwhelming request for more legal privileges inside courts than what was granted to human authors.
The recent use of these copyrighted works was to train the generative models, which many don’t see as transformative. After all, using works for such reasons isn’t unique from using them to educate authors, it shares. It was similarly called out as the real purpose to enable creations that compete with such copied products across similar markets is one done by Meta for profitable reasons. Therefore, it’s more commercial than anything else.
The International Association for Scientific, Medical, and Technical Publishers also shared a short brief about authors and how they favored their calls for justice. The same was the case for Copyright Alliance, which again works on a nonprofit basis and stands for artistic creators throughout broad copyright disciplines. Even the AAP or Association of American Publishers felt the same way.
Hours after the piece was shared, Meta’s rep recalled how there were some smaller groups of law professors who supported the company’s legal standing on this front. In that case, they were all in agreement about how Meta was violating all intellectual property rights by making use of ebooks for training different models. They got rid of copyrights from these sources to disguise the allegation that they were taking part in.
Meta shared how its training is fair, but this case needs to be dismissed as the authors lack the basis to sue correctly. During the month’s start, the American District Judge enabled the case to move ahead. While he did dismiss some parts, he stated that such allegations are serious. The fact that Meta is accused of purposefully getting rid of CMI to hide copyright infringement speaks volumes.
Image: DIW-Aigen
Read next: Top AI Models Fail Simple Debugging Test — Human Coders Still Reign Supreme