The Anthropic Copyright Ruling Exposes Blind Spots on AI; Bloomberg, June 26, 2025

Dave Lee , Bloomberg; The Anthropic Copyright Ruling Exposes Blind Spots on AI

[Kip Currier: It's still early days in the AI copyright legal battles underway between AI tech companies and everyone else whose training data was "scarfed up" to enable the former to create lucrative AI tools and products. But cases like this week's Anthropic lawsuit win and another suit won by Meta (with some issues still to be adjudicated regarding the use of pirated materials as AI training data) are finally now giving us some more discernible "tea leaves" and "black letter law" as to how courts are likely to rule vis-a-vis AI inputs.

This week being the much ballyhooed 50th anniversary of the so-called "1st summer blockbuster flick" Jaws ("you're gonna need a bigger boat"), these rulings make me think we the public may need a bigger copyright law schema that sets out protections for the creatives making the fuel that enables stratospherically profitable AI innovations. The Jaws metaphor may be a bit on-the-nose, but one can't help but view AI tech companies akin to rapacious sharks that are imperiling the financial survival and long-standing business models of human creators.

As touched on in this Bloomberg article, too, there's a moral argument that what AI tech folks have done with the uncompensated use of creative works, without permission, doesn't mean that it's ethically justifiable simply because a court may say it's legal. Or that these companies shouldn't be required by updated federal copyright legislation and licensing frameworks to fairly compensate creators for the use of their copyrighted works. After all, billionaire tech oligarchs like Zuckerberg, Musk, and Altman would never allow others to do to them what they've done to creatives with impunity and zero contrition.

Are you listening, Congress?

Or are all of you in the pockets of AI tech company lobbyists, rather than representing the needs and interests of all of your constituents and not just the billionaire class.] 

[Excerpt]

"In what is shaping up to be a long, hard fight over the use of creative works, round one has gone to the AI makers. In the first such US decision of its kind, District Judge William Alsup said Anthropic’s use of millions of books to train its artificial-intelligence model, without payment to the sources, was legal under copyright law because it was “transformative — spectacularly so.”...

If a precedent has been set, as several observers believe, it stands to cripple one of the few possible AI monetization strategies for rights holders, which is to sell licenses to firms for access to their work. Some of these deals have already been made while the “fair use” question has been in limbo, deals that emerged only after the threat of legal action. This ruling may have just taken future deals off the table...

Alsup was right when he wrote that “the technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes.”...

But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t pay its way. Nobody would dare suggest Nvidia Corp. CEO Jensen Huang hand out his chips free. No construction worker is asked to keep costs down by building data center walls for nothing. Software engineers aren’t volunteering their time to Meta Platforms Inc. in awe of Mark Zuckerberg’s business plan — they instead command salaries of $100 million and beyond. 

Yet, as ever, those in the tech industry have decided that creative works, and those who create them, should be considered of little or no value and must step aside in service of the great calling of AI — despite being every bit as vital to the product as any other factor mentioned above. As science-fiction author Harlan Ellison said in his famous sweary rant, nobody ever wants to pay the writer if they can get away with it. When it comes to AI, paying creators of original work isn’t impossible, it’s just inconvenient. Legislators should leave companies no choice."

A bill to protect performers from unauthorized AI heads to California governor; NPR, August 30, 2024

 Mandalit del Barco, NPR; A bill to protect performers from unauthorized AI heads to California governor

"Other proposed guardrails

In addition to AB2602, the performer’s union is backing California bill AB 1836 to protect deceased performers’ intellectual property from digital replicas.

On a national level, entertainment industry stakeholders, from SAG-AFTRA to The Recording Academy and the MPA, and others are supporting The “NO FAKES Act” (the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act) introduced in the Senate. That law would make creating a digital replica of any American illegal.

Around the country, legislators have proposed hundreds of laws to regulate AI more generally. For example, California lawmakers recently passed the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act (SB 1047), which regulates AI models such as ChatGPT.

“It's vital and it's incredibly urgent because legislation, as we know, takes time, but technology matures exponentially. So we're going to be constantly fighting the battle to stay ahead of this,” said voice performer Zeke Alton, a member of SAG-AFTRA’s negotiating committee. “If we don't get to know what's real and what's fake, that is starting to pick away at the foundations of democracy.”

Alton says in the fight for AI protections of digital doubles, Hollywood performers have been the canary in the coal mine. “We are having this open conversation in the public about generative AI and it and using it to replace the worker instead of having the worker use it as a tool for their own efficiency,” he said. “But it's coming for every other industry, every other worker. That's how big this sea change in technology is. So what happens here is going to reverberate.”"

It’s Banned Books Week. Here’s how to fight for libraries.; The Washington Post, October 2, 2023

Alyssa Rosenberg

 and 

Greg Sargent

, The Washington Post; It’s Banned Books Week. Here’s how to fight for libraries.

"This Banned Books Week, we wanted to share what we’ve learned about how book lovers can defend their schools and public libraries...

Look to the law. Suggesting that books be removed from library shelves on political grounds — because they advocate “gender ideology” or “communism” — might violate laws banning viewpoint discrimination in public schools and libraries. A group of Florida parents is testing that theory in the courts, hoping to establish a clear precedent. And some teachers are challenging restrictions on the grounds that they’re unconstitutionally vague. While those cases play out, library advocates can remind officials and administrators that censorship carries its own legal risks.

And politicians can get behind an anti-censorship legislative agenda. Illinois recently passed a state law that directs public libraries to adopt a “library bill of rights” declaring they won’t remove books under partisan or ideological pressure. Other ideas include transparency requirements for how school systems handle book challenges and contested classroom topics. More state legislators should push such ideas. It sends a clear signal that the law is not merely an instrument that can be wielded by censors but also a potential shield against them."

Va. Republicans try to restrict minors’ access to two books after judge’s obscenity finding; Virginia Mercury, May 19, 2022

GRAHAM MOOMAW, Virginia Mercury; Va. Republicans try to restrict minors’ access to two books after judge’s obscenity finding

‘They’re basically treated like adult magazines now’

"Anderson said he’s only trying to restrict the books’ availability to minors, not to censor or ban them entirely."

“It’s just, they’re basically treated like adult magazines now,” Anderson said. “You can’t go watch an R-rated movie without your parents there. Same concept.”

The legal maneuver was already drawing backlash Thursday.

“Virginia Republicans want to ban books. Everywhere — they aren’t stopping at schools & libraries,” Del. Marcus Simon, D-Fairfax, said on Twitter. “They are authoritarian bullies who want to control what you see, hear, learn and read. Everything they baselessly accuse the left of doing, they do.”

A little-utilized state law allows “any citizen” to ask a court to weigh in on books alleged to be obscene.

After reviewing the two contested books, retired Petersburg-area Judge Pamela Baskervill issued two orders on May 18 finding probable cause the books could qualify as obscene, an initial step that allows the books’ authors and publishers to respond in defense of their work within 21 days of being notified of the court proceedings. Baskervill is handling the case because all other judges in Virginia Beach recused themselves, according to Anderson.

Once a probable cause finding is made, the law also allows the court to grant a temporary restraining order “against the sale or distribution of the book alleged to be obscene.”"

Some parents want action, but school guidance on Utah’s book ban law is still murky; KUER 90.1, May 20, 2022

Jon Reed, KUER 90.1; Some parents want action, but school guidance on Utah’s book ban law is still murky

"Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson sent a letter to the Utah State Board of Education Wednesday to urge education officials to “take initiative” against school districts refusing to comply with a new state law banning “sensitive materials” in schools.

While not naming specific districts, Wilson told KUER that he’s received reports of schools knowingly disregarding the law as well as input from parents on whether certain materials are inappropriate and should be removed.

“When we have clearly pornographic materials in our school libraries, it needs to come out and it needs to come out quickly,” he said. ”This is not an imaginary issue.”

School districts have long had policies for how to address requests to review and remove materials. But the law sets new standards about what material is considered pornographic or indecent, according to a memo from the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.

The memo contradicted previous guidance from the Utah Attorney General. OLRGC also noted the AG’s office overstated U.S. Supreme Court precedent on when the removal of a book from a school library violates a student’s First Amendment rights.

Norman Emerson, president of the Utah Library Media Supervisors, said districts are working to update their policies to be in compliance with state law. Some had waited until more guidance was issued, including direction from USBE that is still forthcoming. In a letter addressed to Speaker Wilson, the board noted districts are already required to have a reconsideration process for library materials but also said it is working toward creating a “model policy” that can be used as a template."

Our privacy regime is broken. Congress needs to create new norms for a digital age.; The Washington Post, January 5, 2019

By Editorial Board, The Washington Post; Our privacy regime is broken. Congress needs to create new norms for a digital age. 

 

"It is time for something new. Legislators must establish expectations of companies that go beyond advising consumers that they will be exploiting their personal information. For some data practices, this might call for wholesale prohibition. For all data practices, a more fundamental change is called for: Companies should be expected and required to act reasonably to prevent harm to their clients. They should exercise a duty of care. The burden no longer should rest with the user to avoid getting stepped on by a giant. Instead, the giants should have to watch where they’re walking."