Law professors alongside authors fighting dead in the issue of publishing rights Amnesty International

A group of professors specialized in copyright law Amicus summary feet In support of the authors who are sued Meta for the training of Llama Ai models on e -books without permission.

The summary, which was submitted on Friday at the US District Court of the Northern Region in California, calls the San Francisco division for the defense of Meta’s fair use.

“The use of copyright-protected work to train obstetric models is not“ transformational ”, because the use of works for this purpose is not appropriately different from their use to educate the human authors, which is a major original purpose for all works (authors”), “reads the summary.” This training use is not “transformational” because its purpose is to enable the creation of works that compete with the works acquired in the same markets-which is a purpose, when following it By a company like Meta, the use makes “commercially” “undoubtedly”.

International Association for Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, World Trade Association for Academic and Vocational Publishers, Asicus also presented To support the authors on Friday.

Hours after the publication of this piece, a Meta Techcrunch spokesman referred to the Amicus summaries presented by a smaller group of law professors and the electronic border institution last week supported Technology giant Legal position.

In this case, Kadrey V claimed. Meta, including Richard Kadry, Sarah Silverman, and TA-Nehisi Coates that Mita has violated their intellectual property rights using e-books to train models, and that the company has removed copyright information from these e-books to hide the alleged violation. Meanwhile, Meta did not claim that its training is qualified for fair use, but the case should be rejected because the authors lack the prosecution.

Earlier this monthThe American boycott judge, Vince Chapria, allowed the case to move forward, although he refused part of it. In his rule, Chapria wrote that the claim of copyright violation is “it is clear that a concrete injury is sufficient to stand” and that the authors “also claimed that Mita had intentionally removed CMI (copyright management information) to hide the violation of copyright.”

The courts weigh a number of publishing rights lawsuits at the present time, including The New York Times Suit against Obaya.

Updated 3:36 pm Pacific: Adding signals to the International Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers Association‘ Amicus message In addition to the Amicus summaries provided to support the position of Meta last week.