This case did at least shed light on the fair use argument.
reply> The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books.
replyHow many of the authors would license their book for endless creation of derivative works for that amount?
The judge already ruled that it was fair for Anthropic to use books for training if they acquired them legally.
replyI dont see the relevance. If Anthropic had bought the book at the store, shredded the spine, scanned the pages and trained on that data instead, there wouldnt have been an issue.
replyAuthors cant simply license away fair use. If it could be dismissed so easily the right wouldn't exist.
Creating derivative products you charge for surely can't be considered fair use?
replyOf course it is. If I write a movie review and sell it to a magazine or whatever, it's derived from the movie, and it's fair use, and I don't need to ask the movie owner for permission first, or give them a cut of my sales. Even if I use some reasonable number of screenshots and video clips, as long as the resulting work is "transformative" i.e. actually a new work, a movie review instead of a copy of the movie.
replyDo you want this to work any other way? I constantly see people in the AI debate working themselves into wildly copyright maximalist positions. I actually don't think that we should give every author veto power over a book review!
YouTubers monetize fair use all the time. Is that significantly different?
replyProbably few, but irrelevant as the ruling was it was not a derivative work.
reply100x the books?
Buying a book does not let you redistribute its contents.
replyIf you are selling more than 100 books you are clearly losing out