Meta Wins AI Copyright Case Over Sarah Silverman, Junot Diaz
A district judge sided with tech giant Meta on Wednesday in a major copyright infringement case, Richard Kadrey, et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc. It marks the second time this week that tech companies have scored major legal victories over AI copyright disputes against individuals.
In the case, 13 authors, including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, Junot Diaz, and Ta-Nehisi Coates, argued that Meta violated copyright laws by training its AI models on their copyrighted works without their permission. They provided exhibits showing that Meta's Llama AI model could thoroughly summarize their books when prompted to do so, indicating that the AI had ingested their work in training.
The case was filed in July 2023. During the discovery phase, it was uncovered that Meta had used 7.5 million pirated books and 81 million research papers to train its AI model.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of San Francisco ruled in a 40-page decision that Meta's use of books to train its AI model was protected under the fair use doctrine in U.S. copyright law. The fair use doctrine permits the use of copyrighted material without obtaining permission from the copyright holder in certain cases. What qualifies as fair use depends on factors like how different the end work is from the original and whether the use harms the existing or future market for the copyrighted work.
Related: 'Bottomless Pit of Plagiarism': Disney, Universal File the First Major Hollywood Lawsuit Against an AI Startup
Chhabria said that while it "is generally illegal to copy protected works without permission," the plaintiffs failed in this case to show that Meta's use of copyrighted material caused "market harm." They didn't show, for instance, that Meta's AI spits out excerpts of books verbatim, creates AI copycat books, or prevents the authors from getting AI licensing deals.
"Meta has defeated the plaintiffs' half-hearted argument that its copying causes or threatens significant market harm," Chhabria stated in the ruling.
Furthermore, Meta's purpose of copying books "for a transformative purpose" is protected under the fair use doctrine, the judge ruled.
Earlier this week, a different judge came to the same conclusion in the class action case Bartz v. Anthropic. U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco stated in a ruling filed on Monday that $61.5 billion AI startup Anthropic was allowed to train its AI model on copyrighted books under the fair use doctrine because the end product was "exceedingly transformative."
Related: 'Extraordinarily Expensive': Getty Images Is Pouring Millions of Dollars Into One AI Lawsuit, CEO Says
Anthropic trained its AI on books not to duplicate them or replace them, but to "create something different" in the form of AI answers, Alsup wrote. The ruling marked the first time that a federal judge has sided with tech companies over creatives in an AI copyright lawsuit.
Now Chhabria's decision marks the second time that tech companies have triumphed in court against individuals in copyright cases. The judge noted that the ruling does not mean that "Meta's use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful," but only means that "these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments" and that Meta's arguments won in this case.
"We appreciate today's decision from the Court," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement on Wednesday, per CNBC. "Open-source AI models are powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and fair use of copyright material is a vital legal framework for building this transformative technology."
Other AI copyright cases are making their way through the courts, including one filed by authors Kai Bird, Jia Tolentino, Daniel Okrent, and several others against Microsoft earlier this week. The lawsuit, filed in New York federal court on Tuesday, alleges that Microsoft violated copyright by training AI on the authors' work.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
29 minutes ago
- CBS News
"eBay for government" helps agencies and schools auction off property, Municibid founder says
A little slice of land in Ambridge Borough could be yours at a steep discount, and all the proceeds will benefit the local community. "We're like an eBay for government," said Greg Berry, CEO and founder of online government auction site Municibid. Berry says his company helps local governments auction off anything, from parcels of land and old desks to school buses and riding mowers. So far, about 7,000 local governments and schools use the online site to sell unneeded items to the public. The latest listing in Ambridge consists of a nearly 4,000-square-foot parcel of land along Glenwood Drive. Twenty-two bids have already been placed at just over $5,000. "A lot of times, smaller towns, and larger ones, have excess land or land that they've come into own in some form, and they don't have a need for it and they're looking to sell it," said Berry. He said maybe in this case, a neighbor wants to expand or a new park could pop up in the space. Berry says governments sell just about everything on his site. "While it's typically vehicles and heavy equipment and tools and land and things that you might expect the government to have and no longer need, it could be anything, such as sailboats and airplanes and jewelry and electric guitars," Berry said. Municibid allows consumers to sort and shop by state, borough or category. And when a winner scores a deal, here's how the costs break down. "When the auction closes and there's a winning bidder, the winning bidder pays us 9% of the winning bid amount, and then they pay 100% of the bid amount to the selling agency," Berry said. Gone are the days of going to the town hall to fill out a sealed bid. Berry told KDKA he used to work as a borough councilor and found that process far from transparent. "No one knew what the governments were selling, and if they did, the process was super inconvenient and intimidating and just wasn't very easy," said Berry. Besides the Ambridge property, KDKA found a lot of items up for grabs in the Pittsburgh area, including an ATV in Mt. Lebanon, a 2020 Ford Explorer in Castle Shannon, a Ford Crown Victoria police car in New Castle, and golf carts in Greensburg. Berry told KDKA some parents snag their teenagers' first car on the site, or business owners land some needed equipment at a fraction of the price.
Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks during the ... More International Finance Institute Global Outlook Forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. The forum is being held alongside the 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). (Photo by) There are myriad ways to express displeasure with international tax policy: you can file a complaint at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), leverage a charm offensive, or, if you're looking for a quick fix, you can slap a retaliatory tax on foreign investors, spook the market, and call it a day. The Trump administration opted for the latter—albeit briefly—with the seemingly now-defunct Section 899 provision, branded by some as the 'revenge tax.' This provision, tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, levied a targeted tax meant to punish countries that impose 'discriminatory' taxes on American firms – particularly tech giants. Now however, after some handshakes and a flurry of posts on social media, it seems the revenge tax has been scrapped. Quietly scuttled, its political usefulness exhausted—for now. What Was the Section 899 'Revenge Tax?' At its core, Section 899 was a legislative jab aimed squarely at America's trading partners. Buried in the GOP's sweeping policy bill, the provision would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive taxes on companies headquartered in countries that were, in the view of the Trump administration, treating American firms unfairly. The sweeping new section of the tax code would have been titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes'—not exactly a subtle start. Section 899 didn't go after governments that it felt had treated U.S. firms unfairly, but instead targeted people and businesses with ties to 'discriminatory foreign countries.' That included foreign individuals, corporations not majority-owned by U.S. persons, private foundations and trusts, and just about any other foreign partnership or structure that Treasury didn't like the looks of. The goal was clear: foreign investors from offending jurisdictions were going to be made to feel real economic pain. The core mechanism was an annual ratcheting-up of tax rates by 5% on the U.S. income of 'applicable persons' – everything from dividends and royalties to capital gains and even real estate sales. Exceptions were few – the legislation even explicitly overrode Section 892, which exempts sovereign wealth funds from taxation. The triggering mechanism for the tax was any broadly-defined 'unfair foreign tax,' which included the Undertaxed Profits Rule from OECD's Pillar 2, Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and any other tax Treasury later deemed discriminatory or deliberately burdensome to U.S. persons. In sum, it would have been sweeping. If passed, Section 899 would have been a weaponization of the tax code into a tool of transparent foreign policy enforcement. It would have marked a sea change in international tax policy, shifting tax rates away from economics and towards the punishment of deemed foreign policy sins. What Prompted this 'Revenge?' Likely the most salient policy shift that triggered this revenge tax was the OECD's Pillar 2. Championed by the Biden administration, Pillar 2 aims to impose a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of multinationals—regardless of where they are headquartered or what markets they serve. On paper, it was intended to end the race to the bottom of low-tax jurisdictions; in practice, it creates a complex web of policies and enforcement rules that can allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies in situations where the U.S. does not. The Undertaxed Profits Rule allows other countries to claim the ability to tax if a company's home jurisdiction does not sufficiently tax its own domestic entities. Think of it as a foreign state saying, well, if you aren't going to tax your companies at 15%, we'll gladly make up the difference for you. To the Trump administration, this was unacceptable—a path to the European Union skimming revenue from American companies. The final straw was likely the imposition of DSTs—levies aimed at the revenue of tech giants like Meta and Google, often imposed by European countries that have grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to sign on to Pillar 2. Of course, countries considering and ultimately passing DSTs were merely exercising their right to tax American companies selling into their markets—but that is neither here nor there. Why Section 899 Was a Problem—And Why It Died For all its bluster, Section 899 had one main flaw: it was bad policy masquerading as tough politics. From the moment the bill hit the docket, or more accurately folks found it swimming around in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, alarms went off across the market. As it turns out, foreign investment doesn't like uncertainty. Section 899 would have injected a lot of uncertainty into the foreign investment market. The tax hikes weren't automatic, and there was no schedule that could be consulted by any one individual state; they turned on vague determinations like what was and wasn't an 'unfair tax.' Treasury could label a state a discriminatory foreign country based on opaque criteria and ramp up rates immediately—all without Congress lifting a finger. As is to be expected, trade groups warned of chilling effects on capital markets. Foreign governments viewed it as a backdoor sanctions regime. So it died – not with a bang, but with a post. Scott Bessent publicly called for the provision's removal, citing diplomatic progress. The death of the Revenge Tax doesn't mean this particular international tax skirmish is over, however, only that the battle was paused temporarily in favor of diplomacy. If global talks stall, or DSTs raise their heads again, no one should be surprised if a future Congress pulls out this playbook again.
Fast Company
38 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Nvidia stock price hits fresh record high as analyst sees ‘golden wave' of Gen AI adoption
Shares of Nvidia Corp (Nasdaq: NVDA) reached a new record high on Thursday in premarket trading. As of the time of writing, the stock had peaked at $156.99 before slightly sliding to $156.68. The uptick follows Wednesday's all-time high closing price of $154.31, which rose to $154.59 in after-hours trading. DeepSeek and tariffs worried investors earlier this year Nvidia has been a de facto representative of AI investment in the market. It reached a high of $153.13 in early January, but its shares soon tumbled alongside China's success with AI company DeepSeek and uncertainty around tariffs. DeepSeek used Nvidia chips to build its AI systems despite the United States banning their sale to China. The stock hit a low of $86.62 on April 7, just five days after President Trump's 'Liberation Day,' on which he announced a series of tariffs worldwide. But now, at nearly double that price, it has recovered its losses—and signaled a renewed investment in AI. However, it comes as the dollar hits a three-year low after reports that Trump will move up his selection of a new Federal Reserve chair, the Wall Street Journal reports. What's fueling Nvidia's recent rally? The chipmaker's current ascension was fueled in part by Loop Capital's decision yesterday to raise its price target from $175 to $250. 'Our work suggests we are entering the next 'Golden Wave' of Gen AI adoption, and NVDA is at the front-end of another material leg of stronger than anticipated demand,' Loop Capital analyst Ananda Baruah stated in a client note, according to Reuters. Helped along by Nvidia's 4% rise on Wednesday, the Nasdaq composite also neared its record high with a 0.3% increase.
