About 500,000 writers will be eligible for at least $3,000 in paydays, thanks to a $1.5 billion settlement in a lawsuit, with a group of authors filing the lawsuit Human.
This landmark settlement marks The biggest expense In American history, this is not a winner for the authors – it is another victory for the tech company.
Tech giants are competing for as much written material as possible to train their LLM, a powered AI chat product like Chatgpt and Claude, i.e., the same products that jeopardize the creative industry. Milquetoast. These AIs may become more complex when these AIs ingest more data, but after basically scratching the entire internet, these companies are run out New information.
That’s why Anthropic, the company behind Claude, pirated millions of books,Shadow Libraryand send them to AI. This special lawsuit, Bartz v. Humansis aimed at Meta, Google, OpenAI and Midjourney Regarding the legality of training AI for copyrighted works.
But writers didn’t get the solution because their work was fed to AI, which was just an expensive slap on humans’ wrist, a company that just raised $13B because it illegally downloaded books instead of buying them.
In June, federal judge William Alsup Based on humans It also ruled that it is indeed legal to train AI for copyrighted materials. The judge argued that such use cases were “transformative” enough to be protected by the doctrine of reasonable use, which was engraved by copyright law Not updated yet Since 1976.
“Like any reader who aspires to be a writer, anthropomorphic LLMs are trained to work to not move forward and copy or replace them, but to turn and create something different,” the judge said.
It was piracy rather than AI training – that allowed Judge Alsup to try the case, but with anthropomorphic settlement, there was no longer a need for trial.
“If approved, if approved, the plaintiff’s remaining estate claims will be resolved,” Anthropic associate attorney Aparna Sridhar said in a statement. “We remain committed to developing secure AI systems to help people and organizations expand their capabilities, improve scientific discoveries and solve complex problems.”
Because of dozens of cases of the relationship between AI and copyrighted works, the judge now has Bartz v. Anthropic prosecutor mentioned the precedent. But given the consequences of these decisions, perhaps another judge will come to a different conclusion.
