It’s not at all surprising that a Federal judge – a particularly good one who has tried to rein in various corporate abuses of the arbitration system – has recognized that AI training and AI text generation is protected under the fair use doctrine in a landmark pre-trial decision.
A federal judge in California issued a landmark ruling that protects the development of artificial intelligence and creative freedom by determining that training AI systems on copyrighted books constitutes fair use under copyright law. U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s decision in Bartz v. Anthropic represents a crucial victory against attempts to stifle technological innovation through overly broad copyright claims.
Judge Alsup ruled that Anthropic’s training of its Claude AI on authors’ works was “exceedingly transformative,” and therefore protected under the fair use doctrine as specified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. This decision correctly recognizes that AI training represents a fundamentally different use of copyrighted material than simple reproduction or distribution.
The judge’s reasoning demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how AI works, comparing the training process to human learning rather than mechanical copying. “Everyone reads texts, too, then writes new texts,” Alsup wrote. “To make anyone pay specifically for the use of a book each time they read it, each time they recall it from memory, each time they later draw upon it when writing new things in new ways would be unthinkable.”
This analogy captures why attempts to restrict AI training are flawed. Human authors read thousands of books, absorb their techniques and ideas, and incorporate that knowledge into their own writing without paying licensing fees for each influence. AI systems operate similarly, learning patterns and techniques rather than copying specific content.
It absolutely makes sense. How can copyright protect something that isn’t copied? How can the use of a copyright text as nothing more than a reference and a style guide be illegal in any way? And as I have pointed out repeatedly, an author’s literary style cannot be protected given the “look-and-feel” decision in favor of Microsoft when Apple tried to protect its graphic user interface.
“Legal experts expect the decision to be appealed.”
That’s not going to happen. They simply don’t have a case, and Alsup is a smart, thoughtful judge who knows what he’s doing when he writes his decisions. He’s the judge whose decision prevented corporations from indefinitely delaying their responses to the arbitrations their terms of use required.