Training on the books at issue was fair use but building a central library from pirated copies was not, a US federal judge ruled in Bartz v. Anthropic

Event date / reported

Evidence stage

Tasks this bears on

Where this applies

United States. The court held that the use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and a fair use, but that Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library, which was not itself a fair use. It treated authors' argument that training would produce an explosion of competing works as not the kind of competition copyright protects against. It is one district court's summary-judgment order, binding no other court; the defendant makes the AI model used to prepare this record.

What this means

What it does not yet show

One district-court order; other courts and countries may decide differently.

What you can check

Does it change the assessment?

Source