Federal Judge Sides with Anthropic in Copyright Dispute, Declares AI Training ‘Transformative’ and Protected by Fair Use

An American federal judge gave the startup of artificial intelligence anthropic a decisive legal victory, judging that the use by the company of copyrights protected by copyright to form its AI model, Claude, falls under fair use and is “typically transformer”.

The judgment, rendered on Monday by judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California, is praised as a central moment in the increasing legal confrontation between content creators and the developers of the AI.

The decision does not only erase a major legal obstacle for anthropic – supported by Amazon, but also gives crucial legal clarity for the general AI generative industry, where similar prosecution accumulates against companies like Openai, Meta and Google. It can be used as a precedent to determine whether the use of material protected by copyright for automatic learning constitutes an infringement or is protected by law.

AI training is “like any reader who aspires to be a writer”

“The goal and the character of using works protected by copyright to train LLM to generate a new text were a typically transformer,” wrote Alsup in his decision. “Like any reader who aspires to be a writer.”

In his opinion, Alsup noted that the complainants – the authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson – displayed to show that the Claude d’Anthropic model directly reproduced the “creative elements of their work” or imitated one of their “identifiable expressive style”.

This, he said, means that the models of great language (LLMS) do not offer “market substitutes” for original books and do not prevail the rights of the authors. Alsup stressed that the use of books to form AI systems to generate new and original outings is out of the doctrine of fair use.

Meaning for other AI proceedings, including Openai vs New York Times

The implications of the decision extend far beyond the anthropic.

OPENAI, for example, is currently involved in a high -level trial deposited by the New York Times, which claims that its items have been used without authorization to train Chatgpt. The media alleges copyright violations and requests compensation or license agreements.

The decision of judge Alsup should be cited as a defense model in this case and others like that. AI developers will probably support that if Claude’s training on copyright protected books is transforming and covered by fair use, similar practices used by Openai and others should also be considered legitimate.

Applicants demand a “solid flight” of books

The trial against Anthropic was filed last August and accused the company of creating a “company of several billion dollars by stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds protected by copyright”. The authors cited the inclusion of their work in a cache of around 7 million pounds which, according to Anthropic, used to create a set of centralized training data.

Although Alsup confirmed Anthropic’s defense concerning the model training, he left an unresolved critical problem. A separate test will take place to determine if the company has poorly kept and used hacked books to build this set of data – and if so, if damages should be granted.

“This anthropic later bought a copy of a book he stole from the internet earlier will not stop him in responsibility for the flight,” wrote Alsup. “But this can affect the extent of statutory damages.”

Anthropic welcomes the decision as a victory for innovation

Anthropic praised the court’s decision, describing it as a validation of its practices.

“We are satisfied with the decision, which is in accordance with the objective of copyright to allow creativity and promote scientific progress,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

The company, founded by former OpenAi researchers, is part of a handful of startups in the running for domination in the next Wave of AI development. Its Claude model was positioned as a rival of the Openai chatgpt and Google Gemini.

As the copyright battles intensify

There is a flow of copyright proceedings against AI companies. In addition to the New York Times affair, the actress Sarah Silverman and other authors continued Openai and Meta for having used their written works. Getty images and various record companies are also looking for legal remedies for what they claim to be an unauthorized use of their intellectual property in the training of AI systems.

But Alsup’s decision could change the momentum.

Some legal experts note that even if they will not pay all disputes over AI and copyright, it creates a clearer framework: if a model does not offer recognizable or plagiarized content, and its use of copyright protected equipment is to create something fundamentally new, the courts may consider it as fair use.