3 ms·
No, courts so far in the jurisdictions which have heard such cases, have ruled it's fair use. There is plenty of ongoing litigation in many jurisdictions, so it
by sofixa 2mo ago
No, courts so far in the jurisdictions which have heard such cases, have ruled it's fair use. There is plenty of ongoing litigation in many jurisdictions, so it's way too early to just decree "it's been determined". It likely won't be for years to come.
- bscphil 2mo agoWhy did Anthropic settle with authors for 1.5 billion then? Surely their lawyers must have decided there's a pretty good chance of judges ultimately deciding that it is copyright infringement?
- hn_acker 2mo agoAnthropic settled because even though the training is fair use, Anthropic did not acquire all of the training material through legal means.
- rileymat2 2mo agoThey had illegally obtained books. 1.5 billion is an incredible deal compared to the per book infringement fine. https://fortune.com/2026/07/21/anthropic-copyright-settlement-authors/ https://fortune.com/2026/07/21/anthropic-copyright-settlemen...
- xienze 2mo agoYou could also ask why the other side agreed to that settlement. It's not a one-way street.
- qwytw 2mo agoIt was about piracy, though? Not fair use.
- xienze 2mo agoWhat does that matter? They were sued and the group suing them accepted at $1.5B settlement instead of something theoretically much larger and precedent-setting.
- qwytw 2mo agoBecause the judge ruled that using the books for training was "fair use". The issue was Anthropic downloading and storing pirated content and there is quite a bit of precedent regarding that already...
- nativeit 2mo agoIf a case is settled by the parties, it cannot be cited as establishing precedent.