Law professors side with authors battling Meta in AI copyright case

A group of professors specializing in copyright law has provided a summary to support the authors who are sued Meta for the alleged training of Llama Ai models on e -books without permission.

The summary, which was submitted on Friday at the US District Court of the Northern Region in California, calls the San Francisco division for the defense of Meta’s fair use.

“The use of copyright -protected work to train obstetric models is not” transformational “, because the use of works for this purpose is not related to their use to educate the human authors, which is a major original purpose for all [authors’] “Business”, as the summary reads. “The use of training is also not” transformational “because its purpose is to enable the creation of business that competes with the works acquired in the same markets-which is the purpose, when it is followed by a company like Meta, makes the” commercial “that cannot be denied.

The International Association of Scientific, Technicians and Medical Publishers, the World Trade Association for Academic and Vocational Publishers, also presented a summary to support the authors on Friday. Likewise, the Culture Coalition, a non -profit institution that represents technical creators through a wide range of copyright and the American Publishers Association.

Hours after the publication of this piece, a Meta Techcrunch spokesman referred to the Amicus summaries presented by a smaller group of law professors and the electronic border institution last week supported Technology giant Legal position.

In this case, Kadrey V claimed. Meta, including Richard Kadry, Sarah Silverman, and TA-Nehisi Coates that Mita has violated their intellectual property rights using e-books to train models, and that the company has removed copyright information from these e-books to hide the alleged violation. Meanwhile, Meta did not claim that its training is qualified for fair use, but the case should be rejected because the authors lack the prosecution.

Earlier this month, the American boycott judge, Vince Chapria, allowed the case to move forward, although he refused part of it. In his rule, Chapria wrote that the claim of violation of copyright is “clearly sufficient injury to stand” and that the authors “have claimed enough that dead had intentionally removed CMI [copyright management information] To hide the violation of copyright. “

The courts weigh a number of lawsuits for copyright, Amnesty International at the present time, including the New York Times against Openai.

Updated 8:36 PM Pacific: Signs were added to the additional Amicus summaries presented on Fri.