Judge in Meta AI Copyright Trial: ‘This Case Is About the Next Taylor Swift’
A federal judge presiding over the high-profile AI copyright lawsuit against Meta has framed the case as one that could determine the future of creative industries and emerging artists in the age of artificial intelligence.
During a recent hearing on motions for partial summary judgment, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria centered the arguments around a provocative question: Could AI tools like those developed by Meta potentially undermine or even “obliterate” markets for original creative works?
The Heart of the Case
The lawsuit, brought by renowned authors including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, alleges that Meta illegally used their copyrighted works to train its generative AI systems. The authors’ legal team, led by prominent attorney David Boies, has emphasized Meta’s collection methods, particularly highlighting the company’s admitted use of “shadow libraries” like LibGen to access copyrighted books without permission.
Meta isn’t contesting that it used these works or accessed them through unauthorized channels. Instead, the company’s defense hinges on the fair use doctrine – a provision in U.S. copyright law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without obtaining permission under certain circumstances.
During the hearing, Judge Chhabria repeatedly steered discussions toward what he views as the central question: Will Meta’s AI tools harm authors’ ability to profit from their creative work?
“If you are dramatically changing, you might even say obliterating, the market for that person’s work, and you’re saying that you don’t even have to pay a license to that person to use their work to create the product that’s destroying the market for their work—I just don’t understand how that can be fair use,” Chhabria told Meta’s attorney Kannon Shanmugam.
The Taylor Swift Factor
In an illuminating exchange, Chhabria invoked music superstar Taylor Swift as an example. He questioned how an AI system trained on Swift’s music could potentially flood the market with billions of similar-sounding songs, and more critically, how this would impact emerging artists trying to break through.
“What about the next Taylor Swift?” Chhabria asked, suggesting that a “relatively unknown artist” could have their career prospects severely damaged if AI systems trained on their work began generating countless works in their style.
This line of reasoning suggests the judge is considering not just the immediate economic impact on established creators, but also the broader implications for future generations of artists and the cultural ecosystem as a whole.
Legal Hurdles for Both Sides
Despite his pointed questions to Meta’s legal team, Chhabria also expressed skepticism about whether the authors could conclusively demonstrate market harm. “It seems like you’re asking me to speculate that the market for Sarah Silverman’s memoir will be affected,” he told Boies. “It’s not obvious to me that is the case.”
This balancing act highlights the complexity of applying traditional copyright frameworks to rapidly evolving AI technologies. The burden of proof in fair use cases typically shifts to defendants, requiring them to demonstrate their use falls within legal exceptions – a point Boies emphasized during arguments.
The judge seemed less convinced by arguments focusing solely on Meta’s book acquisition methods. While acknowledging that downloading books from shadow libraries seemed “kind of messed up,” he noted that copyright law isn’t necessarily designed to address all questionable practices, but rather specific forms of infringement.
Broader Implications
This case represents just one of dozens of AI copyright lawsuits currently moving through the U.S. legal system, but its outcome could set important precedents. Earlier this year, in Thomson Reuters v. Ross, a judge issued the first partial summary judgment in an AI copyright case, ruling in favor of Thomson Reuters against AI startup Ross Intelligence. However, that case involved different technologies and circumstances than the generative AI systems at issue here.
For Meta, the stakes couldn’t be higher. During a recent earnings call, CEO Mark Zuckerberg emphasized that AI is central to the company’s strategy, stating: “Everything that I’ve talked about today is built on top of our AI models and infrastructure.”
Judge Chhabria acknowledged the significance of his pending decision, joking, “I will issue a ruling later today. Just kidding! I will take a lot longer to think about it.”
Industry observers, tech companies, and creators across all media will be watching closely for a ruling that could significantly reshape how AI development interacts with copyright protections in the years to come.
This article was originally reported by Kate Knibbs for WIRED.
