←back to thread

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: 0.2s | 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]▶
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. wingspar ◴[09 Sep 25 19:52 UTC] No.45187811[source]▶
My understanding is this settlement is about the MANNER in which Anthropic acquired the text of the books. They downloaded illegal copies of the books.

There was no issues with the physical copies of books they purchased and scanned.

I believe the issue of USING these texts for AI training is a separate issue/case(s)