Law professors side with authors battling Meta in AI copyright case

Tech Crunch - Apr 11th, 2025

A coalition of copyright law professors has submitted an amicus brief in a high-profile lawsuit against Meta, aligning with authors who claim their intellectual property was used unlawfully to train Meta's Llama AI models. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the brief challenges Meta's fair use defense, arguing that the use of copyrighted ebooks for AI training is not 'transformative' and serves a commercial purpose, thus infringing upon authors' rights. Key figures in the lawsuit include authors Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Ta-Nehisi Coates, who assert that Meta not only used their works without permission but also removed copyright information to conceal the alleged infringement.

The case, Kadrey v. Meta, is part of a broader legal landscape where AI's use of copyrighted material is under scrutiny. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria recently allowed the case to proceed, affirming that the authors have demonstrated sufficient standing with their claims of copyright infringement. This lawsuit joins a series of similar cases, such as The New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI, highlighting the ongoing debate over fair use in the context of AI and intellectual property rights. The outcome of these cases could significantly impact the legal framework surrounding AI development and the protection of creative works.

Meta Ai Training Llama Ai Fair Use Richard Kadrey Sarah Silverman Ta Nehisi Coates Copyright Law Amicus Brief

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.0

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The news story provides a timely and relevant account of a legal battle involving Meta and several authors over AI and copyright issues. It accurately presents the key facts and arguments, though it could benefit from more direct citations to primary sources for enhanced verifiability. The article balances the perspectives of the involved parties but could offer a more detailed presentation of Meta's defense. While the language is clear and accessible, additional context on legal terms could improve readability. The story's focus on a high-profile legal case and its broader implications for AI and intellectual property make it of significant public interest. Overall, the article effectively engages readers interested in technology and law, though its impact may be limited without further coverage or interactive elements.

Accuracy

The news story presents a factual account of a legal case involving Meta and several authors over the alleged unauthorized use of ebooks for AI model training. The claim that a group of professors filed an amicus brief is accurate, as is the description of the fair use defense being contested. The story accurately quotes the brief's argument that using copyrighted works to train AI is not transformative and is commercial. However, the story could benefit from more direct evidence or citations to original documents, such as the amicus brief or court filings, to enhance verifiability.

Balance

The article provides a balanced representation of the perspectives involved in the legal dispute. It includes the positions of both the authors and Meta, detailing the authors' allegations and Meta's defense. However, the story primarily focuses on the arguments against Meta's use of copyrighted materials, potentially underrepresenting the company's perspective. Including more detailed arguments from Meta's side could improve the balance.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to explain the complex legal issues involved. It effectively summarizes the key points of the case, making it accessible to readers without a legal background. The logical flow of the narrative helps maintain reader engagement, though some technical terms related to copyright law could be further clarified for a general audience.

Source quality

The article references a legal case and an amicus brief, suggesting reliance on credible sources. However, it lacks direct citations or links to these primary sources, which would enhance source quality. The story does not specify the professors or institutions involved in the brief, which could provide additional authority and context. Including such details would strengthen the credibility and reliability of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides a clear overview of the legal case and the arguments involved, but it lacks transparency regarding the sources of information. There are no direct quotes from the involved parties or links to the amicus brief or court documents. Including these would offer readers a better understanding of the basis for the claims and enhance the story's transparency.