A group of professors specializing in copyright law submitted an Amicus brief in support of authors who allegedly trained the Lama AI model in e-books without permission.
The summary, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the San Francisco Division in the Northern District of California, calls Meta’s fair use defense “a breathtaking request for greater legal privilege than the court has recognized human authors.”
“The use of copyrighted works to train generative models is not “transformative.” This is because using works for that purpose is not related to using them to educate human authors. [authors’] “The use of that training is to enable the creation of works that compete with works copied in the same market, so the use of that training is not “transformative” either. This is undoubtedly aimed at conducting “commercials” when commercial companies like Meta pursue. ”
Global Trade Association, an international science, technology and medical publishers, and academic and professional publishers, also submitted an Amicus brief on Friday to support the author.
Hours after the article was published, a Meta spokesman pointed out the Amicus brief, submitted last week by a small law professor and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which supports the legal stance of the tech giant.
In this case, authors including Richard Cudley, Sarah Silverman and Tanehishi Coates, claim that Mett infringed intellectual property rights by using e-books to train models, and that the company removed copyright information from those e-books to hide the alleged infringement. Meanwhile, Meta argues that the case should be dismissed because its training is not only entitled as fair use, but because the author has not lost his litigation position.
Earlier this month, US District Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed some of it, but allowed the case to move forward. In his ruling, Chhabria wrote that the allegations of copyright infringement were “clearly concrete injuries sufficient for their position,” and that the author “also appropriately claims that Meta intentionally removed the CMI. [copyright management information] To conceal copyright infringement. ”
The court is currently considering many AI copyright cases, including the New York Times’ lawsuit against Open Eye.
Updated at 3:36pm Pacific: Added a reference to Amicus Brief, an international publisher of science, technology and medicine, as well as the Amicus brief submitted in favor of Meta’s position last week.
Source link
