AI Copyright Conundrum: One Judge Nails Fair Use, Another Trips Over Legal Logic
Generative AI legal cases are in the spotlight, debating if using copyrighted works for AI training is fair use. One judge nailed it, comparing AI training to a writer’s transformative journey. Another? Not so much—a bit of a legal hiccup, but fixable. Let’s hope future courts take notes from the right playbook.
Hot Take:
In the legal world of generative AI, some judges are passing the vibe check while others are missing the plot twist. With two fresh court opinions on whether training AI on copyrighted works is fair use, one judge is getting a standing ovation for understanding the assignment, while another seems to have gone off-script. But fear not, future courts can learn from these plot holes to pen a better sequel in AI jurisprudence.
Key Points:
- Bartz v. Anthropic supports AI training as “transformative” and fair use.
- Kadrey v. Meta Platforms flubs the analysis, fearing “market dilution.”
- Judge Alsup in Bartz champions innovation over speculative market harm.
- Judge Chhabria in Kadrey sees AI training as potentially “illegal” without licenses.
- Future courts should take a page from Bartz, not Kadrey, for AI copyright cases.
Already a member? Log in here