A group of professors specialized in the copyright law has submitted a brief summary in support of authors who sue Meta for allegedly training his models Llama he in illegal electronic books.
The abbreviation, presented Friday at the US District Court for the Northern County of California, the San Francisco Division, calls the defense of faulty use “a staggering request for greater legal privileges than the courts have ever given human authors”.
“The use of copyright protected works to train generative models is not” transformer “because the use of works for that purpose is not really different from their use to educate human authors, which is an original purpose of all works (authors),” the summary states. “This use of training is also not” transformer “because its purpose is to enable the creation of works that compete with the works copied in the same markets-a goal that, when followed by a lucrative company as Meta, also makes use” commercial “.
The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, Global Trade Association for academic and professional publishers, also presented a compilation of amicus in support of authors on Friday. So did the Copyright Alliance, a nonprofit representing artistic creators in a wide range of copyright disciplines, and the American Publishers Association.
Hours after this section was published, a Meta spokesman told Techcrunch to Amicus Briefs Appea to a smaller group of law professors and the electronic Frontier Foundation last week supporting technology giant Legal position.
In this case, Kadrey v. Meta, authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman and TA-Nahisi Coates have claimed that Meta violates their intellectual property rights using their electronic books to train models, and that the company removed copyright information from those e-books to hide the alleged violation. Meta, meanwhile, has claimed not only that his training qualifies as a fair use, but that the issue should be rejected because the authors have no attitude to ignore.
Earlier this month, US District Judge Vince Chhabria allowed the case to move forward, though he rejected part of it. In his ruling, Chhabria wrote that the claim of copyright violation is “undoubtedly an damage to sufficient concrete to stand up” and that the authors also “adequately claimed that Meta deliberately removed CMI (copyright management information) to conceal copyright violations.”
The courts are weighing a number of copyright lawsuits for the moment, including the New York Times lawsuit against Openai.
Updated 8:36 PM Pacific: Added References for additional Amicus cuts presented on Friday.
