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.
It may be fair to you but how about other authors? Maybe it's not fair at all to them.
This is what generative AI essentially is.
Maybe the payment should be $500/h (say $5k a page) to cover the cost of preparing a human verified dataset for anthropic.
Thus the $3k per violation is still punitive at (conservatively) 100x the cost of the book.
Given that it is fair use, Authors do not have rights to restrict training on their works under copyright law alone.
Don't get me wrong: I think this is in incredibly bad deal for authors. That said, I would be horrified if it wasn't treated as fair use. It would be incredibly destructive to society since people would try to use such rulings to chissel away at fair use. Imagine schools who had to pay yearly fees to use books. We know they would do that, they already try to do so (single use workbooks, online value added services). Or look at software. It is already going to be problematic for people who use LLMs. It is already problematic due to patents. Now imagine what would happen if reformulating algorithms that you read in a book was not considered as fair use. Or look at books themselves. A huge chunk of non-fiction consists of doing research and re-expressing ideas in non-original terms. Is that fair use? The main difference between that and a generative AI is we can say a machine did it in the case of generative AI, but is that enough to protect fair use in the conventional sense?