Anthropic judge rejects $1.5B AI copyright settlement

(news.bloomberglaw.com)

290 points nobody9999 | 1 comments | 09 Sep 25 08:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source

Show context

jawns ◴[09 Sep 25 19:02 UTC] No.45187038[source]▶

I'm an author, and I've confirmed that 3 of my books are in the 500K dataset.

Thus, I stand to receive about $9,000 as a result of this settlement.

I think that's fair, considering that two of those books received advances under $20K and never earned out. Also, while I'm sure that Anthropic has benefited from training its models on this dataset, that doesn't necessarily mean that those models are a lasting asset.

replies(22): >>45187319 #>>45187366 #>>45187519 #>>45187839 #>>45188602 #>>45189683 #>>45189684 #>>45190184 #>>45190223 #>>45190237 #>>45190555 #>>45190731 #>>45191633 #>>45192016 #>>45192191 #>>45192348 #>>45192404 #>>45192630 #>>45193043 #>>45195516 #>>45201246 #>>45218895 #

visarga ◴[09 Sep 25 19:32 UTC] No.45187519[source]▶

>>45187038 #

How is it fair? Do you expect 9,000 from Google, Meta, OpenAI, and everyone else? Were your books imitated by AI?

Infringement was supposed to imply substantial similarity. Now it is supposed to mean statistical similarity?

replies(4): >>45187577 #>>45187677 #>>45187811 #>>45187853 #

1. Retric ◴[09 Sep 25 19:43 UTC] No.45187677[source]▶

>>45187519 #

Penalties can be several times actual damages, and substantial similarity includes MP3 files and other lossy forms of compression which don’t directly look like the originals.

The entire point of deep learning is to copy aspects from training materials, which is why it’s unsurprising when you can reproduce substantial material from a copyrighted work given the right prompts. Proving damages for individual works in court is more expensive than the payout but that’s what class action lawsuits are for.

↑