When the lawsuit involving comedian Sarah Silverman and Meta’s AI model LLaMA made headlines this summer, it drew significant attention. Silverman, along with two other co-plaintiffs, took legal action against Meta, raising important questions about the use of generative AI, particularly large language models (LLMs).
While the legal landscape surrounding generative AI like LLMs is still evolving, recent developments suggest challenges for news companies expecting substantial revenue from AI systems trained partially on their content. The debate over whether the output of these models constitutes copyright infringement is a key point of contention. Silverman’s case stands out because her copyrighted work, the book “The Bedwetter,” is not freely available online like most news content. Meta’s use of her book in its training data, sourced from a pirated library, presents a clear copyright violation compared to news publishers’ arguments.
Silverman’s lawsuit contends that every output generated by LLaMA using her work is an infringement of her exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. This raises complex legal questions about derivative works and copyright infringement. Meta, in response, moved to dismiss several claims, emphasizing that copyright law does not protect factual information extracted during training. The court ruled in Meta’s favor, highlighting the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate outputs substantially similar to their original works to establish infringement.
Moving forward, Silverman and her co-plaintiffs have the opportunity to strengthen their case by providing evidence of LLM outputs closely resembling “The Bedwetter.” However, the bar set by the recent ruling poses a significant challenge. While this ruling is subject to appeal, it aligns with previous decisions emphasizing the requirement for direct copying to establish infringement.
In the broader context of AI and copyright law, these legal battles signal a tough road ahead for news companies seeking compensation from AI entities. The need to prove specific harms rather than general grievances will be crucial in shaping the outcome of such disputes. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the delicate balance between technological advancement and intellectual property rights remains a central issue for all involved parties.
