“Market dilution” suggests that “using copyrighted books to train an LLM might harm the market for those works because it enables the rapid generation of countless works that compete with the originals, even if those works aren’t themselves infringing.”
Yesterday, Judge Alsup released his decision on Anthropic’s motion for summary judgment in the fast-moving lawsuit it is defending, brought
As the high‑profile copyright lawsuits against AI companies proceed, the courtroom drama captures headlines. But I’ve long thought that settlement may be the real outcome to watch.
We may already be entering “settlement watch” territory in one of the fastest-moving AI cases, Bartz v. Anthropic.
Back in October, I asked a simple but unresolved question: “Who represents you in the AI copyright suits?” Now, eight months later, we’re getting closer to an answer—at least for some authors. In Bartz v. Anthropic, one of the fastest-moving lawsuits over the use of copyrighted works to train generative AI systems, the plaintiffs have asked the court to certify a class of authors whose books were allegedly copied without permission.
Yesterday evening Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter filed suit against a number of individuals involved in both her attempted removal
The last few days have been quite dramatic for anyone paying attention to copyright law and policy. The Generative AI
In late March, OpenAI made it possible to “Ghiblify” yourself — using its newest version of ChatGPT, with updated image
Below is an interview with Charles Watkinson, Director of the University of Michigan Press and Associate University Librarian for Publishing
Chinese courts are recognizing AI-generated works as copyrightable, and these rulings could potentially impact those in the US under certain circumstances.
On March 3, librarians, authors, publishers, and technologists gathered at Northeastern University Library in Boston to contribute to a startup
