Anthropic, a major AI company, recently won a key legal case. A U.S. court ruled that its use of copyrighted content to train AI models may qualify as fair use.
The court did not offer a blanket approval but left room for future interpretation. It stated that AI training could fall under fair use, depending on the context and purpose.
This ruling gives Anthropic some legal ground to stand on. However, it does not fully remove the company from legal trouble. Several lawsuits from authors and publishers are still active.
Fair Use
Fair use is a legal principle that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission. It typically covers education, research, criticism, and news reporting.
Courts consider several factors, including purpose, amount used, and market impact. Anthropic argued that its use of books and other written content is transformative.
It claims the goal is not to copy but to teach AI how language works. The court agreed that this could be valid under fair use.
This decision offers relief to other AI companies as well that use similar data to train their models.
Also read: Mark Zuckerberg Approved Use of Copyrighted Works for Meta
The Push Back
Despite the court’s ruling, writers argue that Anthropic and others used their work without permission or payment. Many see it as exploitation.
Authors like Sarah Silverman and Paul Tremblay have filed lawsuits, demanding accountability and compensation.
They argue that AI companies built profitable products by using creative works without consent.
The Authors Guild and other advocacy groups have also spoken out. They say the decision weakens copyright protections. Therefore, they urge courts and lawmakers to set clear boundaries.
Anthropic’s Defense
Anthropic maintains that it uses publicly available data responsibly. It denies copying entire works or republishing content. According to a spokesperson:
“Consistent with copyright’s purpose in enabling creativity and fostering scientific progress, ‘Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different.’”
