{"id":505,"date":"2025-09-07T14:47:41","date_gmt":"2025-09-07T18:47:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=505"},"modified":"2025-09-07T14:47:41","modified_gmt":"2025-09-07T18:47:41","slug":"ai-training-moving-closer-to-resolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipmanagement.harnessip.com\/?p=505","title":{"rendered":"AI Training Moving Closer to Resolution"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On June 23, 2025, the Northern District of California granted Anthropic\u2019s motion for summary judgment that its training of its LLM Claude (and Claude\u2019s predecessors) with plaintiff-authors works was a fair use.    Bartz v. Anthropic PBC<\/em>, Case No. 24-cv-5417, Doc, 231 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)<\/a>.  Specifically, Judge Alsup found that the use of plaintiffs\u2019 books to train Claude and its precursors was \u201cexceedingly\u201d or \u201cspectacularly\u201d transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.   The court also held that the digitization of the books purchased in print form by Anthropic was also a fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library \u2014 without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies.  However, the court held that Anthropic had no right to use pirated materials (e.g. materials from pirated sources like Library Genesis and Books), and the creation of a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic\u2019s piracy.  Two days later, in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.<\/em> (Judge Chhabria, June 25, 2025)<\/a>, the court reached a similar determination that the use of copyrighted works is a fair use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After these decisions, the parties in Anthropic<\/em> negotiated a settlement of the pirating claims with these key terms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n