How Are Courts Approaching Copyrighted Materials and Artificial Intelligence?

Two groundbreaking decisions from the Northern District of California—Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Bartz v. Anthropic PBC—shed light on how courts are approaching the use of copyrighted materials in training large language models (LLMs). Both cases involved authors alleging copyright infringement based on the use of their books to train generative AI models, and both courts held that use of the copyrighted materials to train the AI models was transformative. The court in Anthropic held, however, that copying pirated books constitutes copyright infringement and the transformative nature of the use did not rescue such infringement. Conversely, the Meta court held that copying from pirate sites to train AI is fair use, but only because the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence of market harm, which the court believed to be the most relevant factor. As such, while use of copyrighted works to train AI may be fair use, copying works without permission carries the risk of infringement. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.

The Convergence of Artificial Intelligence & Crypto

This article, authored by Duane Morris partner Agatha Liu, was originally published by the California Lawyers AssociationThis article has been reprinted with permission.

The nation is well positioned to further develop artificial intelligence (AI) and promote its application, while the government renews its interest in cryptocurrency (crypto) as a significant part of digital assets. Both AI application and crypto hold huge potential to advance collective prosperity, yet they are rooted in complex, disruptive technologies that pose significant challenges for policymakers. Traditionally, the two fields have followed separate trajectories, but their convergence is increasingly evident.

Read the full article on the Duane Morris website.

Using Artificial Intelligence Tools During Interviews

Duane Morris partner Alex Karasik is quoted in the Law360 article, “3 Tips For Employers Using AI Interviewing Tools.”

He tells Law360 “that while aggressive regulation or litigation from the federal level seems unlikely in the near future, employers still need to be proactive about potential AI bias because states and the plaintiffs bar are homing in.

“Even though AI-related technologies are streamlining employment processes exponentially by the day, there still is a required human element[.] Because a human needs to be able to understand when these unique one-off situations may come up, where an applicant or employee needs an accommodation. And a human needs to have the agility to adapt and apply that accommodation request appropriately and lawfully.”

Read the full article on the Law360 website.

AI Suit Illustrates Challenges for Protecting Proprietary Information

Duane Morris partner Agatha Liu is quoted in the Bloomberg Law article, “Trade Secrets Law Is Awkward Fit in AI Prompt-Hacking Lawsuit,” about a medical AI company’s novel trade secrets lawsuit that illustrates the challenges artificial intelligence presents for protecting proprietary information.

Liu said hacking AI to reveal its prompts is “not a good thing, but it’s not terribly illegal.” AI developers most likely will have to stay on top of the best practices to craft their products to save them from themselves she said.

“If you want to reduce risk, you need to up the ante and make your system more resilient and context-aware,” Liu said.

To read the full article, visit the Bloomberg Law website.

Artificial Intelligence Tools and Copyright Infringement Issues During the Training Process

Duane Morris attorneys Jennifer LantzJeremy Elman and Max DiBaise authored the Bloomberg Law article, “Generative AI Training Case Flags Competition as Major Factor,” exploring what the Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence decision’s novel application of the “fair use” defense of copyright law means for generative AI training.

Companies must be mindful of the ultimate purpose of new artificial intelligence tools to avoid running into copyright infringement issues during the training process. If widely adopted, the Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence decision suggests “intermediate copying” cases are unlikely to provide a strong defense when the final output of a tool mirrors the products it was trained on. Accordingly, the key question is likely to what extent the AI system is competing with the underlying copyrighted work. The further away the system is, the more likely it is to be protected under the fair-use doctrine. Read the full article on the Bloomberg Law website.

FDA Draft AI Guidance Marks a New Era for Biotech, Diagnostics and Regulatory Compliance

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s recent release of two draft guidance documents on the use of artificial intelligence in drug development, biologics and medical devices has sparked both excitement and skepticism. As AI increasingly permeates these fields, the regulatory landscape is just beginning to take shape—and these proposed guidelines take a step in that direction by raising awareness of important questions about the future of AI innovation in life sciences. For therapeutic, medical device and diagnostics companies—whether already implementing AI or just beginning to explore its potential—the message is clear: The landscape is evolving, and future success will require thoughtful consideration of compliance, patient safety and privacy protection from the earliest stages of AI adoption.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

© 2009-2025 Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress