SoylentNews

Freeman [soylentnews.org] writes:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/06/key-fair-use-ruling-clarifies-when-books-can-be-used-for-ai-training/ [arstechnica.com]

Artificial intelligence companies don't need permission from authors to train their large language models (LLMs) on legally acquired books, US District Judge William Alsup ruled [arstechnica.net] Monday.

The first-of-its-kind ruling that condones AI training as fair use will likely be viewed as a big win for AI companies, but it also notably put on notice all the AI companies that expect the same reasoning will apply to training on pirated copies of books—a question that remains unsettled.
[...]
"Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them—but to turn a hard corner and create something different," Alsup wrote.

Alsup's ruling surely disappointed authors, who instead argued that Claude's reliance on their texts could generate competing summaries or alternative versions of their stories. The judge claimed these complaints were akin to arguing "that training schoolchildren to write well would result in an explosion of competing works."
[...]
Alsup noted that authors would be able to raise new claims if they found evidence of infringing Claude outputs. That could change the fair use calculus, as it might in a case where a judge recently suggested that Meta's AI products might be "obliterating" authors' markets [arstechnica.com] for works.
[...]
Anthropic is "pleased" with the ruling, issuing a statement applauding the court for recognizing "that using ‘works to train LLMs was transformative—spectacularly so.'"

But Anthropic is not off the hook, granted summary judgment on AI training as fair use, but is still facing a trial over piracy that Alsup ruled did not favor a fair use finding.
[...]
"This order doubts that any accused infringer could ever meet its burden of explaining why downloading source copies from pirate sites that it could have purchased or otherwise accessed lawfully was itself reasonably necessary to any subsequent fair use," Alsup wrote. "Such piracy of otherwise available copies is inherently, irredeemably infringing even if the pirated copies are immediately used for the transformative use and immediately discarded."
[...]
"Anthropic is wrong to suppose that so long as you create an exciting end product, every 'back-end step, invisible to the public,' is excused," Alsup wrote. "Here, piracy was the point: To build a central library that one could have paid for, just as Anthropic later did, but without paying for it."

To avoid maximum damages in the event of a loss, Anthropic will likely continue arguing that replacing pirated books with purchased books should water down authors' fight, Alsup's order suggested.

"That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the Internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft, but it may affect the extent of statutory damages," Alsup noted.

Original Submission