A United States federal judge has ruled in favor of Meta Platforms Inc. in a pivotal lawsuit over the use of copyrighted books to train artificial intelligence (AI) models, marking a major legal victory for the tech industry.
The decision, issued by District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco, dismissed claims brought by a group of authors including Sarah Silverman and Junot Díaz, who alleged that Meta illegally used pirated versions of their works to develop its LLaMA open-source AI model.
“No matter how transformative generative AI training may be, it’s hard to imagine that it can be fair use… while enabling the creation of competing works,” said Judge Chhabria. “But the plaintiffs failed to make the right legal arguments.”
The Heart of the Lawsuit
The plaintiffs claimed Meta violated copyright laws by downloading pirated copies of books without authorization or compensation. Works cited in the case included:
-
The Bedwetter by Sarah Silverman
-
The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Díaz
However, the court found that the authors did not present a legally viable framework to challenge Meta’s use of the material, leading to dismissal.
Pakistan Launches First AI-Focused Green Data Centre in Karachi
Fair Use or Legal Grey Area?
While the ruling favors Meta, Judge Chhabria cautioned against interpreting it as blanket approval of how generative AI models use copyrighted content.
“This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials is lawful,” the judge emphasized. “It only stands for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments.”
The court acknowledged broader concerns about how AI may impact creative markets but maintained that the authors did not sufficiently demonstrate copyright infringement under the current legal framework.
Broader Impact on AI and Copyright Law
This ruling is the second major win for AI developers in a week. Just days earlier, another judge sided with Anthropic, the developer of the Claude chatbot, in a similar copyright dispute filed by authors.
Together, these rulings could influence the direction of multiple ongoing cases where creators—including musicians, journalists, and visual artists—are pushing back against AI companies over the unauthorized use of creative content in model training.
Meta’s Response
In a statement, Meta welcomed the ruling, calling it a validation of the role of fair use in AI innovation.
“Open-source AI models are powering transformative innovation,” the company stated. “Fair use is a vital legal framework for building this technology.”
The Bigger Debate: AI vs. Human Creativity
The case highlights growing global tension between intellectual property rights and the data-hungry nature of generative AI. As large language models scrape vast volumes of online content—often without consent—courts and policymakers are being challenged to define new boundaries for fair use, licensing, and creator compensation.
Conclusion
While Meta’s courtroom victory provides a legal shield—for now—the debate over copyright and AI is far from settled. As more lawsuits unfold across the U.S. and beyond, the future of how AI companies interact with creative industries remains a key legal and ethical battleground.
