- Bloomberg LP seeks dismissal of a lawsuit filed by authors, including Mike Huckabee, over alleged misuse of their books in training BloombergGPT AI model.
- Bloomberg argues its actions fall under the fair use doctrine and are part of legitimate research into generative AI capabilities.
- Plaintiffs accuse Bloomberg, Meta Platforms, and Microsoft of using pirated book dataset for AI training.
- Bloomberg emphasizes a lack of specificity in plaintiffs’ claims regarding infringement details.
- Fair use defense is expected to play a crucial role in tech firms’ response to copyright disputes related to AI training.
Main AI News:
Bloomberg LP has moved to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and other authors, alleging misuse of their books in training its BloombergGPT large language model. In a court filing on Friday, Bloomberg argued that its utilization of the copyrighted works falls within the boundaries of fair use doctrine, emphasizing its research project exploring generative AI capabilities.
Representatives for both the authors and Bloomberg declined immediate comment on the recent filing. Notably, Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters, operate as competitors in the financial data and news sector.
The plaintiffs, including Huckabee and renowned Christian author Lysa TerKeurst, had previously sued Bloomberg, Meta Platforms, and Microsoft over claims of employing a dataset containing thousands of pirated books to educate text-based AI systems. This lawsuit forms part of a broader trend where copyright holders challenge tech firms’ practices in training generative AI models.
In response to the author’s allegations, Bloomberg contended that the claims lacked specificity regarding infringement details or which specific books were purportedly misused for BloombergGPT, characterizing it as an internal company tool. The company asserted its fair use of the authors’ works, citing this doctrine within U.S. copyright law to justify certain unauthorized uses of copyrighted material.
Moreover, Bloomberg underscored that its actions constituted a limited and internal use of copyrighted works for non-commercial AI model training, emphasizing its role in advancing research into generative AI capabilities. This legal maneuver suggests a pivotal defense strategy for tech entities embroiled in copyright disputes arising from AI training endeavors.
Conclusion:
Bloomberg’s legal motion to dismiss the copyright lawsuit highlights the ongoing challenges and complexities surrounding the use of copyrighted material in AI training. As tech companies increasingly delve into the development of advanced AI models, the interpretation and application of fair use doctrine will continue to be a focal point in navigating copyright disputes. This underscores the importance for businesses to carefully assess and address copyright implications in their AI research and development initiatives to mitigate legal risks and foster innovation within the market.
