The complainants in the Landmark Kadrey v. Meta Case have already submitted the controversial controversial AI report of the United States Copyright Office as proof in their copyright violation action against the technology giant.
Last Friday, the copyright office discreetly released one “pre-publication version“From his opinions on the use of copyright -protected work to train generative AI models. The substantial report contained bad news for AI companies hoping to claim the legal doctrine of fair use as a defense before the courts.
Less than a day after the report, Shira Perlmutter, the head of the copyright office, was dismissed by President Donald Trump. We still don't know exactly why Perlmutter was dismissed, but the move alarmed certain copyright lawyers, as Mashable previously reported.
And on May 12, the complainants of Kadrey V Meta, who include artists and authors such as Junot Diaz, Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, submitted the report as an exhibition in their collective appeal.
What is in the AI ​​report of the American copyright office?
The report of the office was the conclusion of a three -part investigation into the law on copyright and artificial intelligence, which he calls unexplored legal territory. The report “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Part 3: Generative IA Training” examined exactly the type of legal problems at stake in Kadrey V Meta.
Although some copyright lawyers and democratic politicians have speculated that the report led to the dismissal of Perlmutter, there are other possible explanations. In a blog article, Copyright lawyer Aaron Moss said “it is more likely that the office ran to publish the report before a wave of leadership changes can delay – or derail – its conclusions”.
The report addressed in detail the four factors of the doctrine of fair use. Meta and other AI companies are prosecuted to use work protected by copyright to train their AI models, and Meta in particular said that this activity should be protected under fair use.
Mashable lighting speed
The long ratio of 113 pages spends about 50 pages immerse in the nuances of fair use, citing historical legal affairs which ruled for and against fair use. This is not going so far as to make general conclusions, but its analysis generally promotes copyright holders on AI companies and their unprecedented storage of data for model training.
The position of the copyright office on the problem of White Hot does not correspond to the wishes of the Big Tech Titans, who hid the Trump administration. In general, President Trump adopted a pro-Tech approach to AI regulation.
The complainants in the case of Meta de Kadrey v. Clearly hope that the report could tip the scale in their favor. Lawyers who submitted the report as proof on Monday did not explain in detail why he was submitted as “an additional declaration of the authority”. THE Short Simply said: “The report addresses several key questions discussed in the respective movements of the parties concerning the use of works protected by copyright in the development of generative AI systems and the application of the doctrine of fair use.”
AI models can harm the creative markets, find from the copyright office
The controversial report in AI index could tip the balance for the case against Meta.
Credit: WildPixel / ISTOCK / Getty images
The part of the report which is potentially the most overwhelming for Meta is the evaluation by the copyright office of the fourth fair fair use factor, which considers the effects on the current or future markets.
“The use of collections hacked by work protected by copyright to build a training library, or the distribution of such a library to the public, would harm the market for access to this work,” said the pre-publication version of the report.
The analysis also considers the dilution of the possible market for the authors. “If thousands of romantic novels generated by AI are put on the market, fewer romantic novels authorized by the man on which AI has been formed is likely to be sold. The fees of fees can also be diluted,” said the report. In addition, the complainants argued that the use of hazard by Meta to access the books of the authors deprived them of license possibilities.
For its part, Meta maintains that its Llama Model AI does not compete with the authors market and that the transformative output of the model makes the argument of fair use out of purpose.
Although the report promotes the argument of the complainants, we do not know if the judge in the case will agree. And because it is a pre-publication version, it could be published or even canceled by a future leader in the copyright office.
Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable's parent company, in April, filed a complaint against Openai, alleging that it has violated Ziff Davis Copyrights in the training and exploitation of its AI systems.
