Meta just dodged a bullet in a copyright lawsuit. A federal judge decided they didn’t break the law by using 13 authors’ books to train their AI tools without permission. Judge Vince Chhabria granted Meta a summary judgment because the authors failed to show that Meta’s actions hurt them financially. Let’s not pretend this is groundbreaking; it’s a standard play in copyright law. The real kicker is that this case, along with others, highlights the emerging battlefield over AI and copyright.
Back in 2023, a group of well-known authors, including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, took Meta to court. They claimed Meta infringed on their copyright by using their books to train AI models. The case, Kadrey v. Meta, was one of the first shots fired in this legal saga. Now, there are plenty more lawsuits like this clogging up the US court system.
Chhabria focused on whether Meta’s actions would financially harm the authors. This isn’t about ethics; it’s about cold, hard cash. If using someone else’s work without permission doesn’t hurt their wallet, courts tend to look the other way. Meanwhile, another judge, William Alsup, ruled that Anthropic’s use of copyrighted materials was legal, though they still have some piracy charges to face. Meta and Anthropic both got wins, but they’re not out of the woods yet.
Chhabria disagreed with Alsup on the importance of market harm versus whether the work is “transformative.” In copyright cases, “transformative” means the new work isn’t a direct substitute for the original. If the new work doesn’t hurt the original’s market, it might slide under the fair use radar. Chhabria’s focus on market harm could influence future cases. It’s a fresh angle, but don’t expect it to shift the entire legal landscape overnight.
Proponents of AI as a transformative technology see Chhabria’s ruling as a win, claiming training AI on copyrighted material is fair use unless it causes market harm. Here’s what this really means: companies might still have to pay up or get permission for using copyrighted materials. This isn’t a free pass for AI firms to raid bookshelves without consequences.
Matthew Sag from Emory University points out that while Meta scored a victory, the court is seriously considering the potential market impact of AI models trained on copyrighted works. Chhabria lamented that the plaintiffs didn’t make a strong enough case on this front—a rare moment where a judge seemed more invested in the argument than those bringing the suit.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that Meta’s actions were unprecedented piracy, yet the court ruled in Meta’s favor. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this circus. Legal battles often hinge on technicalities and who presents a stronger case, not necessarily on justice.
Meta’s response was predictably upbeat, highlighting the “transformative innovations” fueled by open-source AI and fair use. Meanwhile, other authors and organizations are closely watching the outcome, knowing this ruling is just one piece of a much larger puzzle.
In the grand scheme, this ruling has limited consequences. It only affects these 13 authors, not the entire pool of creators whose works Meta has used. Chhabria made it clear that this decision doesn’t mean Meta’s use of copyrighted materials is universally lawful. The legal wrangling over AI and copyright is just getting started, and this decision won’t be the final word.
