Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability | HackerNoon

5. OVERALL ANALYSIS

After the four factors and any others deemed relevant are “explored, [ ] the results [are] weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578.

The copies used to train specific LLMs were justified as a fair use. Every factor but the nature of the copyrighted work favors this result. The technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes.

The copies used to convert purchased print library copies into digital library copies were justified, too, though for a different fair use. The first factor strongly favors this result, and the third favors it, too. The fourth is neutral. Only the second slightly disfavors it. On balance, as the purchased print copy was destroyed and its digital replacement not redistributed, this was a fair use.

The downloaded pirated copies used to build a central library were not justified by a fair use. Every factor points against fair use. Anthropic employees said copies of works (pirated ones, too) would be retained “forever” for “general purpose” even after Anthropic determined they would never be used for training LLMs. A separate justification was required for each use. None is even offered here except for Anthropic’s pocketbook and convenience.

And, as for any copies made from central library copies but not used for training, this order does not grant summary judgment for Anthropic. On this record in this posture, the central library copies were retained even when no longer serving as sources for training copies, “hundreds of engineers” could access them to make copies for other uses, and engineers did make other copies. Anthropic has dodged discovery on these points (e.g., Opp. Exh. 17 at 93– 94 (retained); Opp. Exh. 22 at 196 (no limits); Opp. Exh. 30 at 3, 4 (no accounting); see also Opp. 15). We cannot determine the right answer concerning such copies because the record is too poorly developed as to them. Anthropic is not entitled to an order blessing all copying “that Anthropic has ever made after obtaining the data,” to use its words (Opp. Exh. 30 at 3, 4).

CONCLUSION

With respect to the training copies and the print-to-digital converted copies, this order has drawn all ambiguities and inferences in favor of the opposing side, namely Authors. With respect to the pirated copies, this order has also accepted the Authors’ version of the facts. Authors did not move for summary judgment but if they had, then we would have been obligated to accept all reasonable views given the evidence in defendant’s favor instead.

This order grants summary judgment for Anthropic that the training use was a fair use. And, it grants that the print-to-digital format change was a fair use for a different reason. But it denies summary judgment for Anthropic that the pirated library copies must be treated as training copies.

We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages, actual or statutory (including for willfulness). That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft but it may affect the extent of statutory damages. Nothing is foreclosed as to any other copies flowing from library copies for uses other than for training LLMs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.