Meta’s copyright dispute with a group of authors, including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, hinges on whether the company’s AI tools generate works that could potentially affect the sales of the authors’ books.
US District Court Judge Vince Chhabria recently spent several hours questioning lawyers from both parties, following their motions for partial summary judgment. This indicates their desire for the judge to make decisions on specific aspects of the case rather than having each issue go to trial. The authors claim that Meta unlawfully used their work to develop its generative AI tools, alleging that the company acquired their books through “shadow libraries” such as LibGen. Meta has acknowledged using the works and downloading books from these shadow libraries but argues that its actions are protected under the “fair use” doctrine, which permits certain unauthorized uses of copyrighted material, such as parody, teaching, and news reporting.
Should Judge Chhabria rule in favor of either motion, a legal precedent could be established that may influence future generative AI copyright cases. The case, Kadrey v. Meta, is among many similar lawsuits currently progressing through the US legal system.
While the authors have focused on the alleged piracy, Chhabria emphasized the key question of whether Meta’s AI tools could negatively impact book sales and financially harm the authors. He questioned Meta’s lawyer, Kannon Shanmugam, about how using an author’s work without a license could be considered fair use if it significantly damages the market for that work. Shanmugam responded that such effects were speculative.
Further discussions between Chhabria and Shanmugam included hypothetical scenarios, such as the impact on artists like Taylor Swift if her music were used by AI to generate imitations. The judge pondered the implications for emerging songwriters, noting that a “relatively unknown artist” might face career challenges if their style were replicated by AI.
At certain points, the case appeared to favor the authors, as Chhabria suggested Meta might struggle if the plaintiffs could prove the AI tools produced similar works that reduced their income. However, he also communicated doubts about whether the authors could provide sufficient evidence. Addressing the authors’ legal team, led by attorney David Boies, Chhabria questioned whether they could demonstrate a tangible impact on their commercial prospects, stating that it was not immediately clear how the market for works like Sarah Silverman’s memoir would be affected.
