Latest news with #Chhabria
Epoch Times
02-05-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
Judge Skeptical of Meta's Claims It Did Not Violate Copyright Law in AI Lawsuit
A federal judge in San Francisco on April 1 expressed skepticism over social media giant Meta's argument that it did not violate copyright law when it used the works of 13 authors to train its artificial intelligence (AI) models without their permission. District Judge Vince Chhabria in California questioned lawyers for both parties over Meta's request for a ruling that it made 'fair use' of books by Junot Diaz, comedian Sarah Silverman, and others to train its large language model known as Llama. Chhabria said he did not think this was the case. 'You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products,' Chhabria 'You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person's work, and you're saying that you don't even have to pay a license to that person. 'I just don't understand how that can be fair use.' Related Stories 5/1/2025 4/28/2025 Chhabria's comments stem from a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by comedian Sarah Silverman and two authors against Meta in 2023. The suit argued that the company used pirated versions of their books to train Llama, which was Part of the legal challenge—allegations that text generated by Llama infringed their copyrights—was initially dismissed by Chhabria in November 2023, though he allowed Silverman and the other authors to amend most of their claims. They It alleges that Meta pirated their books through online digital repositories of pirated books called 'shadow libraries' in order to help train Llama. 'Plaintiffs and Class members did not consent to the use of their copyrighted books as training material in any version of Llama, despite there being a vibrant market for content for AI training data—a market within which Meta participates,' they wrote in the lawsuit. 'Indeed, while Meta internally discussed licensing copyrighted books for training data and reaching out to a variety of publishers from the very beginning of its development of Llama, it decided to cut corners and save time and money by using free online 'shadow libraries' to source this highly valuable content.' Meta Argues Use of Books Was 'Transformative' Meta has not denied that it used the authors' works but says it was protected by the legal doctrine of 'fair use,' which allows for the unauthorized use of copyrighted material under specific circumstances, and has asked for the lawsuit to be thrown out. Specifically, it has argued its use of their books was transformative and helped train Llama to 'serve as a personal tutor on nearly any subject, assist with creative ideation, and help users to generate business reports, translate conversations, analyze data, write code, and compose poems or letters to friends.' Chhabria acknowledged that Meta's use may have been transformative, but said it still may not have been fair. 'This seems like a highly unusual case in the sense that though the copying is for a highly transformative purpose, the copying has the high likelihood of leading to the flooding of the markets for the copyrighted works,' the judge said. Kannon Shanmugam, a lawyer for Meta, said copyright owners are not entitled to 'protection from competition in the marketplace of ideas.' 'But if I'm going to steal things from the marketplace of ideas in order to develop my own ideas, that's copyright infringement, right?' Chhabria responded. Chhabria also told David Boies, an attorney representing the authors, that the legal challenge may have failed to adequately address the potential market impacts of Meta's conduct. The judge also asked Boies for evidence that Llama's creations would affect the market for the authors' books specifically. 'It seems like you're asking me to speculate that the market for Sarah Silverman's memoir will be affected by the billions of things that Llama will ultimately be capable of producing,' Chhabria said. 'And it's just not obvious to me that that's the case.' Llama has been downloaded an average of 1 million times per day since its release, The Epoch Times has contacted a Meta spokesperson for comment. The Associated Press contributed to this report
Time of India
02-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Judge in Meta case warns AI could 'obliterate' market for original works
A sceptical federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday questioned Meta Platforms ' argument that it can legally use copyrighted works without permission to train its artificial intelligence models. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack India's Rafale-M deal may turn up the heat on Pakistan China's support for Pakistan may be all talk, no action India brings grounded choppers back in action amid LoC tensions In the first court hearing on a key question for the AI industry, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria grilled lawyers for both sides over Meta's request for a ruling that it made "fair use" of books by Junot Diaz, comedian Sarah Silverman and others to train its Llama large language model . "You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products," Chhabria told Meta's attorneys. "You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person's work, and you're saying that you don't even have to pay a license to that person." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo "I just don't understand how that can be fair use," Chhabria said. The fair use question hangs over lawsuits brought by authors, news outlets and other copyright owners against companies including Meta, OpenAI and Anthropic. The legal doctrine allows for the use of copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission under some circumstances. Live Events The authors in the Meta case sued in 2023, arguing the company used pirated versions of their books to train Llama without permission or compensation. Discover the stories of your interest Blockchain 5 Stories Cyber-safety 7 Stories Fintech 9 Stories E-comm 9 Stories ML 8 Stories Edtech 6 Stories Technology companies have said that being forced to pay copyright holders for their content could hamstring the burgeoning, multi-billion dollar AI industry. The defendants say their AI systems make fair use of copyrighted material by studying it to learn to create new, transformative content. Plaintiffs counter that AI companies unlawfully copy their work to generate competing content that threatens their livelihoods. Chhabria on Thursday acknowledged that Meta's use may have been transformative, but said it still may not have been fair. "This seems like a highly unusual case in the sense that though the copying is for a highly transformative purpose, the copying has the high likelihood of leading to the flooding of the markets for the copyrighted works," Chhabria said. Meta attorney Kannon Shanmugam said copyright owners are not entitled to "protection from competition in the marketplace of ideas." "But if I'm going to steal things from the marketplace of ideas in order to develop my own ideas, that's copyright infringement, right?," Chhabria responded. Chhabria also told the plaintiffs' attorney David Boies that the lawsuit may not have adequately addressed the potential market impacts of Meta's conduct. "I think it is taken away by fair use unless a plaintiff can show that the market for their actual copyrighted work is going to be dramatically affected," Chhabria said. Chhabria prodded Boies for evidence that Llama's creations would affect the market for the authors' books specifically. "It seems like you're asking me to speculate that the market for Sarah Silverman's memoir will be affected by the billions of things that Llama will ultimately be capable of producing," Chhabria said. "And it's just not obvious to me that that's the case."
The Star
02-05-2025
- Business
- The Star
Judge in Meta case warns AI could 'obliterate' market for original works
The Meta logo, a keyboard, and robot hands are seen in this illustration taken January 27, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration (Reuters) - A skeptical federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday questioned Meta Platforms' argument that it can legally use copyrighted works without permission to train its artificial intelligence models. In the first court hearing on a key question for the AI industry, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria grilled lawyers for both sides over Meta's request for a ruling that it made "fair use" of books by Junot Diaz, comedian Sarah Silverman and others to train its Llama large language model. "You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products," Chhabria told Meta's attorneys. "You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person's work, and you're saying that you don't even have to pay a license to that person." "I just don't understand how that can be fair use," Chhabria said. The fair use question hangs over lawsuits brought by authors, news outlets and other copyright owners against companies including Meta, OpenAI and Anthropic. The legal doctrine allows for the use of copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission under some circumstances. The authors in the Meta case sued in 2023, arguing the company used pirated versions of their books to train Llama without permission or compensation. Technology companies have said that being forced to pay copyright holders for their content could hamstring the burgeoning, multi-billion dollar AI industry. The defendants say their AI systems make fair use of copyrighted material by studying it to learn to create new, transformative content. Plaintiffs counter that AI companies unlawfully copy their work to generate competing content that threatens their livelihoods. Chhabria on Thursday acknowledged that Meta's use may have been transformative, but said it still may not have been fair. "This seems like a highly unusual case in the sense that though the copying is for a highly transformative purpose, the copying has the high likelihood of leading to the flooding of the markets for the copyrighted works," Chhabria said. Meta attorney Kannon Shanmugam said copyright owners are not entitled to "protection from competition in the marketplace of ideas." "But if I'm going to steal things from the marketplace of ideas in order to develop my own ideas, that's copyright infringement, right?," Chhabria responded. Chhabria also told the plaintiffs' attorney David Boies that the lawsuit may not have adequately addressed the potential market impacts of Meta's conduct. "I think it is taken away by fair use unless a plaintiff can show that the market for their actual copyrighted work is going to be dramatically affected," Chhabria said. Chhabria prodded Boies for evidence that Llama's creations would affect the market for the authors' books specifically. "It seems like you're asking me to speculate that the market for Sarah Silverman's memoir will be affected by the billions of things that Llama will ultimately be capable of producing," Chhabria said. "And it's just not obvious to me that that's the case." (Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by David Bario and Deepa Babington)
CNA
01-05-2025
- Business
- CNA
Judge in Meta case warns AI could 'obliterate' market for original works
A skeptical federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday questioned Meta Platforms' argument that it can legally use copyrighted works without permission to train its artificial intelligence models. In the first court hearing on a key question for the AI industry, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria grilled lawyers for both sides over Meta's request for a ruling that it made "fair use" of books by Junot Diaz, comedian Sarah Silverman and others to train its Llama large language model. "You have companies using copyright-protected material to create a product that is capable of producing an infinite number of competing products," Chhabria told Meta's attorneys. "You are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person's work, and you're saying that you don't even have to pay a license to that person." "I just don't understand how that can be fair use," Chhabria said. The fair use question hangs over lawsuits brought by authors, news outlets and other copyright owners against companies including Meta, OpenAI and Anthropic. The legal doctrine allows for the use of copyrighted work without the copyright owner's permission under some circumstances. The authors in the Meta case sued in 2023, arguing the company used pirated versions of their books to train Llama without permission or compensation. Technology companies have said that being forced to pay copyright holders for their content could hamstring the burgeoning, multi-billion dollar AI industry. The defendants say their AI systems make fair use of copyrighted material by studying it to learn to create new, transformative content. Plaintiffs counter that AI companies unlawfully copy their work to generate competing content that threatens their livelihoods. Chhabria on Thursday acknowledged that Meta's use may have been transformative, but said it still may not have been fair. "This seems like a highly unusual case in the sense that though the copying is for a highly transformative purpose, the copying has the high likelihood of leading to the flooding of the markets for the copyrighted works," Chhabria said. Meta attorney Kannon Shanmugam said copyright owners are not entitled to "protection from competition in the marketplace of ideas." "But if I'm going to steal things from the marketplace of ideas in order to develop my own ideas, that's copyright infringement, right?," Chhabria responded. Chhabria also told the plaintiffs' attorney David Boies that the lawsuit may not have adequately addressed the potential market impacts of Meta's conduct. "I think it is taken away by fair use unless a plaintiff can show that the market for their actual copyrighted work is going to be dramatically affected," Chhabria said. Chhabria prodded Boies for evidence that Llama's creations would affect the market for the authors' books specifically. "It seems like you're asking me to speculate that the market for Sarah Silverman's memoir will be affected by the billions of things that Llama will ultimately be capable of producing," Chhabria said. "And it's just not obvious to me that that's the case."
Reuters
25-04-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Invisalign maker agrees to pay $31 million in consumer price-fixing settlement
April 25 (Reuters) - Align Technology (ALGN.O), opens new tab, maker of Invisalign clear teeth aligners, has agreed to pay $31.7 million to resolve a U.S. consumer lawsuit accusing the company of entering a conspiracy that drove up prices at rival SmileDirectClub. A group of consumers filed the proposed class action settlement, opens new tab on Thursday in federal court in San Francisco. The deal requires approval by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria. The lawsuit, filed in 2021, alleged Align conspired with rival SmileDirectClub to not enter the direct-to-consumer market for teeth aligners, allowing SmileDirectClub to charge artificially higher prices. Chhabria has twice rejected earlier proposed settlements in the lawsuit, most recently in February. The judge had said then that a provision of the settlement providing $300 coupons for consumers to buy Invisalign products would only strengthen its position as an alleged illegal monopolist. Thursday's renewed proposal is all cash and does not contain a coupon component, the consumers' lawyers told Chhabria. They also said the settlement amount was higher than the plaintiffs were prepared to settle for during prior negotiations. Align Technology and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Align has denied any wrongdoing. SmileDirectClub was not a defendant. There are about 230,000 members of the class — and potentially 1.4 million overall — who purchased aligners from SmileDirectClub, the plaintiffs lawyers told the court. SmileDirectClub shut down in December 2023, after filing for U.S. bankruptcy protection. The plaintiffs said the settlement fund was about 17% of an estimated $181 million in damages for the class. They said the percentage was comparable with other settlements in antitrust cases that won approval in the Northern California federal court. The consumers' lawyers said they would seek up to about $8 million, or 25% of the settlement fund, for legal fees. The attorneys said they had devoted more than 9,500 hours to the litigation so far. The case is Snow v. Align Technology Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC. For plaintiffs: Steve Berman and Rio Pierce of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro For Align: Karma Giulianelli and Mark Levine of Bartlit Beck, and James Pearl and Thomas Counts of Paul Hastings Read more: US judge blocks Invisalign maker's price-fixing settlement Invisalign maker reaches $27.5 million settlement of consumer antitrust lawsuit
