Artificial Ielligence companies have faced complais about copyright law in rece years, and now Meta In one of the most importa cases Copyright Related to Teaching AI models It has reached a time.
In the petition, 13 authors claimed that Meta had used their works to teach his artificial ielligence systems without permission. But Judge Vince Chairia on Wednesday issued a vote in favor of Meta announced that the company “has the right to obtain a summary of the defense of a fair use of copyright violations using the authors’ books to teach language models.”
Simply put, the judge has stated that Meta is eitled to receive a ruling without the need to hold a complete court against a copyright violation claim.
However, the judge has warned that this vote does not mean the legal use of meta using copyright works to teach language models. He emphasized in his ruling:
“This seence does not mean that the meta use of copyright works to teach language models is legal. “The ruling only means that the plaiiffs have provided incorrect argumes and have failed to provide sufficie evidence to prove the right argume.”
The seence was issued just one day after the legal victory similar to Ahropic. In that case, the federal judge also stated that teaching language models using legal copies of books was a fair use.
Rejection
Judge Chaboria has clearly rejected two of the plaiiffs’ argumes in reviewing the meta case. The first is the ability to produce parts of the books by the Llama Meta model, and the second is to reduce the ability of the authors to gra their work permitted to teach artificial ielligence models. He wrote.
“The LLAMA model cannot produce as much as the textbooks books, and the plaiiffs have no right to the licensing market for the teaching of artificial ielligence models.”
According to the judge, the plaiiffs failed to support the argume that “might win”: that meta copying could lead to the supply of similar products in the market and reduce the value of the main works. He also referred to the rece vote of Judge William Aseap in the Ahropic case, saying that the judge had ignored concerns about the possible damage to productive models to the main market.
