Recent claims made by Meta and Anthropic in US courts regarding the legality of using copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence (AI) tools have sparked a broader discussion on similar implications in the UK. Both companies are leveraging the “fair use” defense against allegations of copyright infringement linked to the development of their respective AI chatbots, Llama and Claude.

Context of the Legal Challenges

In a San Francisco court, legal representatives for Meta argued that its training methodology constitutes “fair use.” They assert that utilizing published books without authorization forms part of a transformative process necessary for developing effective AI systems. Similarly, Anthropic requested a dismissal of a lawsuit from authors alleging copyright violations due to the use of their written works to train its AI model, Claude, also invoking the fair use doctrine.

This debate intensified after the Atlantic published a searchable database detailing the contents of LibraryGenesis (LibGen), a well-known repository of pirated texts, allegedly used in training Meta’s AI model. This revelation has led to increased scrutiny and protests led by the Society of Authors, alongside a petition that has garnered over 8,000 signatures from authors advocating for their rights.

Differences Between US and UK Copyright Law

The principle of “fair use” in the US allows for some flexibility regarding the unauthorized use of copyrighted works, provided the usage can be shown to be transformative. Public figures in the UK copyright sector, including Catriona MacLeod Stevenson of the Publishers Association, note that this principle does not hold in UK courts, where “fair dealing” is the standard.

Stevenson highlighted that while “fair use” permits broader applications, “fair dealing” offers a strictly limited scope designed to protect authors and publishers. She emphasized the urgency of establishing transparency regarding how tech firms utilize creative works, advocating for a licensing framework that would allow authors and publishers more control and appropriate compensation for their work.

Professional Perspectives on Copyright and AI

Ambre Morvan from the Society of Authors explained the constraints of UK law regarding copyright. She indicated that the “fair dealing” exception allows for limited extracts of works under specific conditions, focusing on whether the use is commercial and how much of the original work is utilized.

Morvan also maintained that the essence of what tech companies are doing does not represent either “fair use” or “fair dealing,” arguing instead that it constitutes a clear infringement of copyright laws. Her assertions were echoed by Baroness Beeban Kidron, who criticized attempts by US companies to stretch the meaning of fair use beyond its intended purposes, highlighting the quality and essence of the copyrighted content they seek.