About half a million authors will be eligible for a day of paying of at least $ 3,000, thanks to a historical settlement of $ 1.5 billion in a category treatment that a group of authors brought against man.
This landmark settlement marks the higher payment In the history of the US copyright law, but this is not a victory for the writers – it is still a victory for technology companies.
Technological giants are struggling to collect as much written material as possible to train their LLMs, which dominate innovative AI chats such as Chatgpt and Claude – the same products that endanger creative industries, even if their results are Milquetoast. These AISs can become more sophisticated when consuming more data, but after scraping basically the whole internet, these companies are literally is exhausted new information.
That is why the man, the company behind Claude, Paed Millions of Books by “shadow libraries“And they are fueled by AI. This particular treatment, Bartz by Anthropic, is one of the dozens filed against companies such as Meta, Google, Openai and Midjourney for the legality of AI training in copyright -protected projects.
But the authors do not take this settlement because their work was fueled in an AI – this is just a costly crap for Anthropic, a company that just put another $ 13 billion because it has made illegal books instead of buying them.
In June, federal judge William Alsup fell with anthropogenic and ruled that it was, indeed, legal to train AI in copyright protected material. The judge argues that this case of use is “transformative” enough to be protected by the doctrine of fair use, an exhaust of the copyright law that has not been updated Since 1976.
“Like any reader who aspires to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMS has been trained in projects not to fight and reproduce or replace them – but to turn a hard angle and create something different,” the judge said.
It was piracy – not AI training – that moved to Judge Alsup to bring the case to trial, but with Anthropic’s settlement, a trial is no longer necessary.
“Today’s settlement, if approved, will resolve the remaining hereditary claims of the plaintiff,” said Aparna Sridhar, Anthropic’s Deputy General Adviser, in a statement. “We remain committed to developing AI safe systems that help people and organizations expand their potential, promote scientific discovery and solve complex problems.”
As dozens of more cases about the relationship between AI and copyright -protected works go to court, judges now have Bartz v. HUMAN to be mentioned as a precedent. However, since the consequences of these decisions, perhaps another judge will come to a different conclusion.
