- Judge Vince Chhabria has partially dismissed a copyright lawsuit brought against Meta by a group of authors.
- However, the judge determined that Kadrey et al’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claim could move ahead.
- He suggested that the removal of copyright management information CMI may represent a legally recognizable injury.
A California Judge has partially granted Meta’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a group of authors, including novelist Richard Kadrey and comedian Sarah Silverman.
Judge Vince Chhabria’s decision in Meta vs. Kadrey adds to a growing body of case law pertaining to copyright infringement claims against AI developers. And with each case, the nature of intellectual property rights with respect to AI training becomes clearer.
Kadrey et al. Copyright Lawsuit Moves Ahead
The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, alleges that Meta infringed upon the copyrights of various authors by using their books to train its AI model, Llama.
While Meta sought a full dismissal, the court ruled that some claims could proceed.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), ruling that the allegations were preempted by federal copyright law.
However, the court allowed the claims related to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to move forward, recognizing that Meta’s alleged removal of copyright management information (CMI) constituted a potential violation.
Digital Millennium Claims Still Alive
A crucial part of the ruling addressed the plaintiffs’ allegations that Meta intentionally removed CMI from copyrighted works used in training its AI models.
The court found that such removal could be considered an effort to conceal copyright infringement, a key element under the DMCA.
This ruling aligns with recent lawsuits against OpenAI and other AI developers, where plaintiffs have cited the DMCA in their legal arguments.
For example, in The Intercept Media, Inc. v. Ope nAI , a court ruled that the removal of CMI could form the basis of a DMCA claim, underscoring the importance of digital attribution in AI training disputes.
While Meta argued that DMCA protections do not align with traditional copyright concerns, the court noted that the law’s purpose is to safeguard digital property rights, making it relevant in the context of AI training.
The decision suggests that AI companies cannot rely solely on broad copyright defenses to evade accountability for metadata manipulation.
AI Copyright Claims and “Concrete Harm”
Another critical issue in the lawsuit is whether the plaintiffs have suffered “concrete harm,” a requirement for legal standing in copyright cases.
Courts have scrutinized such claims in AI-related lawsuits, often ruling that plaintiffs must demonstrate tangible damages.
In his latest decision, Judge Chhabria referenced Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI . In this 2024 case, a court deemed that an AI model’s reproduction of text doesn’t constitute harm significant enough to support a copyright claim.
However, Chhabria determined that the removal of CMI itself may represent a legally recognizable injury as Meta likely removed it to obscure the copyright protection of the works in question
This aspect of the ruling could shape future AI copyright litigation as courts increasingly reject the notion that AI training with copyrighted materials is in and of itself a violation of intellectual property rights.
