The legal landscape for AI companies is increasingly complicated, particularly regarding how AI-generated content relates to existing works. The UMG v. Anthropic case highlights the tension between innovation in AI and copyright infringement, as earlier versions of Anthropic produced song lyrics resembling original works. Although safeguards have been established, the broader concern lies in what happens when AI outputs infringe on copyrights. Settlements are expected, especially involving major content holders, but trial outcomes may hinge on summary judgment, which could expedite resolutions and reduce potential backlash against AI companies.
At the end of the day, the harder question for the AI companies is not is it legal to engage in training? It's what do you do when your AI generates output that is too similar to a particular work?
There may well be some settlements. Where I expect to see settlements is with big players who either have large swaths of content or content that's particularly valuable.
Collection
[
|
...
]