Law professors alongside authors fighting dead in the issue of publishing rights Amnesty International
A group of professors specialized in copyright law Amicus summary feet In support of the authors who are sued Meta for the training of Llama Ai models on e -books without permission.
The summary, which was submitted on Friday at the US District Court of the Northern Region in California, calls the San Francisco division for the defense of Meta’s fair use.
“The use of copyright -protected work to train obstetric models is not” transformational “, because the use of works for this purpose is not related to their use to educate the human authors, which is a major original purpose for all [authors’] “Business”, as the summary reads. “The use of training is also not” transformational “because its purpose is to enable the creation of business that competes with the works acquired in the same markets-which is the purpose, when it is followed by a company like Meta, makes the” commercial “that cannot be denied.
International Association for Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, World Trade Association for Academic and Vocational Publishers, Asicus also presented To support the authors on Friday. As well as the copyright coalitionA non -profit institution that represents technical creators through a wide range of copyright specialties, And the American Publishers Association.
Hours after the publication of this piece, a Meta Techcrunch spokesman referred to the Amicus summaries presented by a smaller group of law professors and the electronic border institution last week supported Technology giant Legal position.
In this case, Kadrey V claimed. Meta, including Richard Kadry, Sarah Silverman, and TA-Nehisi Coates that Mita has violated their intellectual property rights using e-books to train models, and that the company has removed copyright information from these e-books to hide the alleged violation. Meanwhile, Meta did not claim that its training is qualified for fair use, but the case should be rejected because the authors lack the prosecution.
Earlier this monthThe American boycott judge, Vince Chapria, allowed the case to move forward, although he refused part of it. In his rule, Chapria wrote that the claim of violation of copyright is “clearly sufficient injury to stand” and that the authors “have claimed enough that dead had intentionally removed CMI [copyright management information] To hide the violation of copyright. “
The courts weigh a number of publishing rights lawsuits at the present time, including The New York Times Suit against Obaya.
Updated 8:36 PM Pacific: Signs were added to the additional Amicus summaries presented on Fri.
