The AI book scraping issue explained
The revelations have sparked widespread outrage among authors and copyright advocates. The Society of Authors called Meta's actions 'appalling', with chief executive Ana Ganley saying: 'Rather than ask permission and pay for these copyright-protected materials, AI companies are knowingly choosing to steal them in the race to dominate the market. This is shocking behaviour by big tech that is currently being enabled by governments who are not intervening to strengthen and uphold current copyright protections. As part of the Creative Rights in AI Coalition, the SoA has been at the heart of the fight and is continuing to lobby against these unlawful and exploitative activities.' Meta's statement
In response, Meta filed a motion to dismiss the case, stating: 'At the crux of this case is an issue of extraordinary importance to the future of generative AI development in the United States: whether Meta's use of publicly available datasets to train its open-source large language models constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law.'
The company maintains that training AI with data freely available online falls under fair use—an argument that may have far-reaching consequences for the future of AI development. What happens next?
As Kadrey vs. Meta unfolds in the United States, other copyright infringement lawsuits have also been filed against Meta. Meanwhile, some authors are exploring ways to remove their work from pirate libraries like LibGen and Z-Library.
With mounting legal pressure and global scrutiny, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how AI companies source their training data—and whether creators will finally get a say in how their work is used.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Libyan Express
15-05-2025
- Libyan Express
US court hits Israeli spyware firm NSO with $167m fine
Building housing the Israeli NSO group, on 28 August 2016, in Herzliya, near Tel Aviv [JACK GUEZ/AFP/Getty Images] A California federal jury has ordered Israeli surveillance company NSO Group to pay Meta $167 million in punitive damages, setting a precedent as the first court ruling to impose financial penalties on a spyware vendor for misuse of its technology. The verdict delivers a clear message that commercial enterprises profiting from intrusive surveillance tools cannot hide behind their governmental clients. Jurors deliberated for just one day before determining that NSO had acted with 'malice, oppression or fraud' when deploying its Pegasus spyware against 1,400 WhatsApp users. Pegasus software, which provides nearly complete access to a target's device—including microphones, cameras and encrypted communications—was used to target journalists, human rights advocates and political opponents rather than criminal elements. Meta, WhatsApp's parent company, condemned the hacking as 'despicable' and a clear breach of privacy rights. NSO has consistently maintained that it sells its spyware exclusively to vetted government clients for national security purposes. However, investigations have revealed Pegasus being utilised to enable cross-border repression by authoritarian governments. The previous American administration placed NSO on a trade blacklist for its involvement in such abuses, making it the first company added to the US entity list for enabling state surveillance. The jury's decision is likely to increase pressure on Washington to implement stronger regulations for the commercial spyware industry. Although collecting the financial penalty may prove challenging, the judgement establishes an important legal precedent: spyware companies can be held directly liable in American courts, regardless of their customers' governmental connections. In this way, the case redefines digital privacy not simply as a user expectation but as a civil right, and indicates that the immunity long enjoyed by private surveillance entities is drawing to a close.
Tatler Asia
09-05-2025
- Tatler Asia
The AI book scraping issue explained
The revelations have sparked widespread outrage among authors and copyright advocates. The Society of Authors called Meta's actions 'appalling', with chief executive Ana Ganley saying: 'Rather than ask permission and pay for these copyright-protected materials, AI companies are knowingly choosing to steal them in the race to dominate the market. This is shocking behaviour by big tech that is currently being enabled by governments who are not intervening to strengthen and uphold current copyright protections. As part of the Creative Rights in AI Coalition, the SoA has been at the heart of the fight and is continuing to lobby against these unlawful and exploitative activities.' Meta's statement In response, Meta filed a motion to dismiss the case, stating: 'At the crux of this case is an issue of extraordinary importance to the future of generative AI development in the United States: whether Meta's use of publicly available datasets to train its open-source large language models constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law.' The company maintains that training AI with data freely available online falls under fair use—an argument that may have far-reaching consequences for the future of AI development. What happens next? As Kadrey vs. Meta unfolds in the United States, other copyright infringement lawsuits have also been filed against Meta. Meanwhile, some authors are exploring ways to remove their work from pirate libraries like LibGen and Z-Library. With mounting legal pressure and global scrutiny, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how AI companies source their training data—and whether creators will finally get a say in how their work is used.
Times
21-04-2025
- Times
Former Waitrose boss says Meta ‘stole' his books to train AI
The former boss of Waitrose is offering to defend any British author whose books may have been used by Meta to train its AI system amid concerns his own titles have been stolen. Lord Price has written to Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of the social media giant, to threaten legal action after learning that four of his books, including last year's Happy Economics, were harvested in a pirated digital archive allegedly used by Meta to develop its artificial intelligence capabilities. Price, 64, has accused the business of 'trampling on' intellectual property rights, which he warned would 'chill future innovation and effort'. Meta has denied acting illegally. In his letter, which was also sent to Sir Keir Starmer, Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary,
