A judge says that the case of AI Copyright from Meta is about “the next Taylor Swift”

Metas copyright struggle with a group of authors, including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, will hire the question of whether the company's AI tools produce works that can exploit the book sales of the authors.

Vince Chhaubria, judge of the US district court, spent several hours grilling lawyers from both sides after they had assessed applications for a partial summary, which means that Chhaubria decides on certain questions of the case instead of deciding on each individual in court. The authors claim that Meta had illegally used their work to build its generative AI tools to emphasize that the company had their books through “shadow libraries” like Libgen. The social media giant does not deny that it has used the work or that he has downloaded books from shadow libraries into mass, but that his behavior is shielded by the doctrine “Fair Use”, an exception in US copyright, which in certain cases enables an uneventful use of copyrighted work, including parodies, teaching and news.

If Chhaubria grants one application, he will give a judgment before the procedure – and probably determine an important precedent in which the dishes deal with generative AI copyright cases. Kadrey v. Meta Is one of the dozens of complaints submitted against AI companies that are currently winding through the US law system.

While the authors focused on the piracy element of the case, Chhablia expressly spoke about his conviction that the big question is whether Meta's AI tools impair the sale of book sales and the authors otherwise lead to losing money. “If you change dramatically, you may even say that you have wiped out the market for the work of this person, and you say that you don't even have to pay this person a license to use your work to create the product that destroys the market for your work – I just don't understand how it can be fair,” he told Meta Lawyer Kannon Shanmugam. (Shanmugam replied that the proposed effect was “just speculation”.)

CHHABRIA and Shanmugam continued to discuss whether Taylor Swift would be damaged if their music were fed into a AI tool, which then created billions of robot -knuckle. Chhaubria asked how the less established songwriter would affect. “What about the next Taylor Swift?” He asked and argued that a “relatively unknown artist”, whose work was taken up by Meta, probably hindered her career if the model in her style would produce “a billion pop songs”.

Sometimes it sounded as if the case was losing the authors, and Chhablria noted that Meta was “caused” if the plaintiffs could prove that Meta's tools produced similar works that could earn so much money from their work. Chhablria also emphasized that he was not convinced that the authors could show the necessary evidence. When he turned to the legal team of the authors, led by top-class lawyers David Boies, Chhaubria repeated whether the plaintiffs could actually underpin the accusations that Meta's AI tools could probably affect their commercial prospects. “It seems that they ask me to speculate that the market for Sarah Silverman's memoirs will be affected,” he said to Boies. “It's not obvious to me.”