“Groundbreaking Ruling: How a Landmark Case is Redefining Copyright in the Age of AI”
What does it mean?
I have been surprised in the last few years by the willingness of people who know better to declare unconditionally that the “making of copies to train AI is categorically fair use.” That is not how copyright works. Fair use requires an analysis of case-specific facts. With the first case now decided, hopefully that line will be silenced.
For those who wish to minimize the impact, the first argument will be “this is just one district court, and there may be an appeal.” True enough, but that does not end the inquiry. Courts are free to consider any cases they wish.
