The Association of American Publishers filed an amicus brief on April 11 supporting authors in their class action lawsuit against Meta for copyright infringement related to AI training.

The brief argues that Meta's use of copyrighted works to train its LLaMA AI model fails to meet fair use standards and contradicts the company's claims that licensing options for such content don't exist.

"Meta's systematic copying and encoding of protected creative works, word by word, into a large language model, is not a transformative fair use under the law, but rather, grossly exceeds the doctrine's legal purpose and judicial precedent," Maria A. Pallante, president and CEO of AAP, said.

The lawsuit, filed in December 2023 in the Northern District of California, includes plaintiffs Sarah Silverman, Richard Kadrey, Christopher Golden, Michael Chabon, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Junot Díaz. They allege Meta appropriated millions of copyrighted works without permission or compensation, obtaining much of the material from pirate sites like Anna's Archives and LibGen. This is one of approximately 40 ongoing lawsuits brought by publishing industry organizations, companies, authors and others against AI companies.

According to the brief, "Some researchers estimate the AI training license market to be valued at $2.5 billion now, and projected to grow to $30 billion within a decade." Meta’s current market valuation is estimated to be $1.4 trillion dollars.

The AAP brief directly challenges Meta's assertion that there is no viable licensing option for AI training materials, while stating that "the existence of an active market for AI training materials is indisputable." The document references existing licensing deals between AI companies such as OpenAI, Microsoft, and Amazon with various publishers, as seen in the chart below:

The AAP notes that Meta reportedly held discussions with publishers about acquiring authorized content before ultimately choosing to use pirated materials instead. Much of this is outlined in Alex Reisner’s reporting for The Atlantic.

The brief states that Meta's actions "undermine the copyright incentives that Congress enacted" and damage authors' and publishers' ability to benefit from their creative investments.

Key highlights from the brief include:

  • Meta, "a company valued at over a trillion dollars, asks this Court to declare that it is free to appropriate and commercially exploit the content of copyrighted works on a massive scale without permission or payment."
  • The brief argues that "common sense dictates that authors' words themselves, not just 'statistical information' about them, are stored in the model."
  • AAP contends that Meta evaded "technological protections that are essential to a functioning online marketplace for copyrighted works," which is "manifestly at odds with the mandate of Congress in adopting the DMCA."
  • The brief concludes that "the long-term potential of AI technology will only be realized by preserving the marketable rights that enable authors, publishers, and AI developers to engage in mutually beneficial commercial transactions."

The brief further argues that a finding of fair use in this case "would not only undermine the public interest in a workable copyright regime, but encourage and reward theft twice over." Other organizations filing amicus briefs include the Copyright Alliance, The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, and Copyright Law Professors.

A court hearing on summary judgment motions made by each party is set for May 1.

FTC Case Begins Today

The filing was made on Friday. Today, Meta will begin addressing an antitrust case brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which alleges that Meta's acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 were part of a strategy to suppress competition and establish a monopoly in the social media market. The FTC argues that these acquisitions were designed to eliminate potential rivals, violating federal antitrust laws, and seeks to compel Meta to divest these platforms to restore competition.