A Federal judge in California has made the first decision regarding artificial intelligence companies using creative work to train their models. Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson filed a lawsuit against Anthropic in 2024 for retracting their books illegally to train their AI model.

Anthropic, the defendant had been previously charged with copyright after it was disclosed that the company had been using pirated copies of books to train its systems.

In a heated moment, the judge declared that the use of copyrighted books was allowed as long as it was downloaded legally. Even if it was purchased in print and then digitally scanned, it would still be permissible.

This decision marks a major landmark case for AI companies because it allows them to use copyrighted material, but only if it is purchased. 

Creators vs. Policymakers

The ruling has caused a rift between authors, artists, and other creatives versus the lawmakers. As generative AI expanded into the literature space, authors naturally fought back with lawsuits. In a publication written by Debevoise and Plimpton, it was held that the Thomson Reuters case was one of the first instances of alleged copyright by generative AI companies—though the facts have yet to back this claim. 

According to the Guardian, twelve copyright cases have been consolidated in New York. Some notable plaintiffs include Ta-Nehisi Coates, Michael Chabon, Junot Díaz as well as the New York Times.

Tech companies argue that ‘copyrighting’ these authors' works is fair as per the 1994 Supreme Court ruling and Article 1 of the United States Constitution. Adding onto their argument, Article 1 specifically mentions the creation of copyright laws that help develop science and technology.

But, as District Court Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco has noted, authors are worried that these new tools might put them in a dangerous position given the already hypercompetitive publishing market. 

The plaintiff’s attorney neglected to provide a statement since the ruling was dropped.

The Domino Effect of This Precedent

A clear precedent has been set—the work of authors and other creative artists may be copied and used to train AI systems, just as long as the work is obtained legally. While purchasing an artist’s book or artwork generates income for any artist, work developed by the automated machine that is AI will not only worsen competition but also create strikingly similar work to what a human is capable of pulling off.

In a survey undertaken by the Authors Guild, it was found that 90% of authors believed that they should be compensated if their work was used in generative AI. As noted by New York Times best-selling author Victoria Aveyard, she feels wronged as her work has been stolen by the multi-billion-dollar corporation Meta to train its AI system. 

These fears are born not just from pirating books, but the luck involved, in addition to hard work and opportunity, when it comes to the publishing world. By illegally obtaining these books to train AI models, Aveyard believes that it becomes difficult to get compensated as sales drop, affecting her career and others.

It has long been established that creative arts have not been able to financially compensate those who pursue them. This latest move might just hit that nail in the coffin.