TECH NEWS – The judge’s decision isn’t entirely one-sided, and authors can still sue the tech company — so it seems both the goat and the cabbage have survived.

As generative artificial intelligence becomes more widespread, the line between original and reproduced content is becoming increasingly blurred. This shift poses an economic threat to creative professionals. The controversy is especially relevant when it comes to training AI models like ChatGPT or Claude, which rely on massive datasets to learn and generate new content. Anthropic has come under fire for allegedly using copyrighted material to train its Claude AI models.

Anthropic is accused of training Claude with copyrighted books. But on June 24, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California ruled in Anthropic’s favor, stating that using legally purchased and digitized books to train the AI model qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law. The judge emphasized that transforming texts into AI knowledge — rather than copying or distributing them — meets the criteria for fair use.

While Alsup drew a clear line, saying that training AI models on legally acquired copyrighted content is not the same as copying, he held Anthropic accountable for using pirated books from sites like Book3 and LibGen. The judge expressed little tolerance for the use of illegally sourced data, even if the intent was to create transformative work.

The judge stated that Anthropic will face a separate trial over its use of pirated content and the question of what damages must be paid. He noted: “This order doubts that any accused infringer could ever meet its burden of explaining why downloading source copies from pirate sites, which could have been purchased or accessed lawfully, was reasonably necessary for any subsequent fair use.”

By splitting the case, the court has left the door open for authors to pursue a separate piracy lawsuit against Anthropic. This marks a significant turning point for the future of AI and how training data is sourced. With this ruling, the judge has established a strong precedent: training on legally purchased books may be fair use, but acquiring data through piracy is not justifiable — a stance that will likely influence future tech and AI-related court cases.

Source: WCCFTech, Documentcloud