What A Recent Federal Court Ruling Taught Us About Fair Use, Pirated Books, and Responsible AI Development | I Am What an Intellectual Property Attorney Looks Like.
What a brilliant piece, Ruky. It should be read far and wide.
It made me think of how musicians and songwriters have collective bodies that monitor and distribute royalties to them, from exposure on radio, TV, live venues & streaming. (Think: bodies like ASCAP, BMI, SoundExchange).
So - you guessed it - I asked ChatGPT if any such a body exists. It said:
In short:
✅ Yes, there has been serious and growing discussion about creating royalty-collecting bodies for AI training data.
❌ But no such body exists yet, and no formal framework is in place.
🔜 However, pressure is mounting from authors, publishers, artists, and international governments to build a system that mimics collective licensing in other media.
I hope the stakeholders can push through the obstacles to create something like a 'blanket licensing structure' that 'evens up' the balance of power between copyright holders and AI companies. Just like the music industry.
Thank you so much for this. You’re spot on, the music industry offers a compelling framework for what collective licensing could look like in the AI space. The fact that we have established structures like ASCAP and BMI that recognize and compensate creative labor gives me hope that similar protections can be built for authors, educators, and other creators whose work fuels these models.
We're not there yet, but the pressure is growing, and so is the clarity around what’s at stake. I deeply appreciate you naming this parallel and helping expand the conversation.
It's as if we're all farmers growing corn and some big conglomerate steals all we produce. Then it makes it into corn chips and profits hugely without ever paying us for the corn.
This is probably the best newsletter I have signed up for. It is a full read from top to bottom, so thank you for all that you put into it because it shows.
Now, the training on copyright materials, while complex, makes sense. However, I'm having a hard time believing those highly trained lawyers at Anthropic "had the resources to purchase the books it pirated, it just didn’t…" and they let the company be vulnerable in this way.
What I am wondering about is the standard for AI compliance... if you're an entrepreneur where is that information? And, I'm wondering if disclaimers are enough (ex: hey you signed up for my law firm's newsletter and I might train my AI on your questions).
Thank you so much for this. Truly means a lot to know the time and care we put into the newsletter is coming through.
And yes, I hear you. It’s hard to imagine a company with Anthropic’s legal and financial resources making a choice like that without fully weighing the risk. That’s exactly why this moment is raising such important questions.
I don’t usually reply fast to posts like this but fuck it here I go.
And it’s not because they’re not urgent rather it’s because the kind of work you’re doing don’t deserve a quick tap-back and a fist bump. It deserves to be felt. Sat with. Studied like scripture. And this one right here? This was more than a legal breakdown. This was a forensic sweep of something bigger: a damned generational theft hiding behind innovation’s good name.
You wrote:
“You cannot hoard wrongly obtained copyrighted materials—and call it innovation just because you ran it through ChatGPT and came out with something different.”
That hit like a low bassline in my chest. Because it ain’t just data they been laundering. It’s us. Our phrasing. Our frameworks. Our God-given rhythm and metaphor that shows up in decks and prompts and marketing copy… all chopped up and anonymized like it ain’t ever had no momma.
You laid it out plain but beautiful:
“We can build transformative tools and respect the humans whose ideas fuel them.”
That word respect? That’s the one they keep dodging.
Not permission. Not licensing. Respect.
I write from a different angle….less courtroom, more war room. But the battlefield is familiar. They don’t just want the stories. They want the soul baked into the syntax, stripped of authorship, softened with AI tone, and sold back to us like it was born in a lab. We’re watching the remixers become robber barons and you had the nerve to call it what it is without flinching.
“You can’t cloak yourself in the language of innovation and fair use while building a digital bookshelf full of stolen books.”
Man oh man.
I don’t even have a question for you right now. Just appreciation. Just Respect. And maybe… something else that ain’t easy to name here.
Because what you’re doing here? It ain’t just IP protection. You’re setting the terms of engagement for a new kind of creator economy. One rooted in ancestral memory and strategic clarity. One that says: we covered. We built this, and we’re gonna watch it be used in our name with intention or with consequences.
I see you.
I’ll keep reading slow.
And when you look up one day and notice a path already cleared where none should’ve been he’ll that’s just me and a pair of metaphorical wire cutters, doing what I do. Quietly. Thoroughly.
This has to be the most affirming comment I have ever received. THANK YOU SO MUCH for really seeing and affirming me and my team. We did a deep dive into the Anthropic case, and spent way more time on this article, because we knew it mattered.
I've been following this closely. My day job is IT. What it really comes down to is that our laws have been behind technology for the last 30 years. I expect to have AI delt with sometime around 2136.
What a brilliant piece, Ruky. It should be read far and wide.
It made me think of how musicians and songwriters have collective bodies that monitor and distribute royalties to them, from exposure on radio, TV, live venues & streaming. (Think: bodies like ASCAP, BMI, SoundExchange).
So - you guessed it - I asked ChatGPT if any such a body exists. It said:
In short:
✅ Yes, there has been serious and growing discussion about creating royalty-collecting bodies for AI training data.
❌ But no such body exists yet, and no formal framework is in place.
🔜 However, pressure is mounting from authors, publishers, artists, and international governments to build a system that mimics collective licensing in other media.
I hope the stakeholders can push through the obstacles to create something like a 'blanket licensing structure' that 'evens up' the balance of power between copyright holders and AI companies. Just like the music industry.
Link
Thank you so much for this. You’re spot on, the music industry offers a compelling framework for what collective licensing could look like in the AI space. The fact that we have established structures like ASCAP and BMI that recognize and compensate creative labor gives me hope that similar protections can be built for authors, educators, and other creators whose work fuels these models.
We're not there yet, but the pressure is growing, and so is the clarity around what’s at stake. I deeply appreciate you naming this parallel and helping expand the conversation.
Very insightful. Thank you for translating the legalese into something a commoner can understand.
You’re so welcome. I truly believe legal concepts should be accessible, not intimidating :).
Yes thank you 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 such a great piece. This is so important to recognize and legislate appropriately.
Aww thank you so much! :).
It's as if we're all farmers growing corn and some big conglomerate steals all we produce. Then it makes it into corn chips and profits hugely without ever paying us for the corn.
Exactly. That analogy captures it perfectly.
This is probably the best newsletter I have signed up for. It is a full read from top to bottom, so thank you for all that you put into it because it shows.
Now, the training on copyright materials, while complex, makes sense. However, I'm having a hard time believing those highly trained lawyers at Anthropic "had the resources to purchase the books it pirated, it just didn’t…" and they let the company be vulnerable in this way.
What I am wondering about is the standard for AI compliance... if you're an entrepreneur where is that information? And, I'm wondering if disclaimers are enough (ex: hey you signed up for my law firm's newsletter and I might train my AI on your questions).
Thank you so much for this. Truly means a lot to know the time and care we put into the newsletter is coming through.
And yes, I hear you. It’s hard to imagine a company with Anthropic’s legal and financial resources making a choice like that without fully weighing the risk. That’s exactly why this moment is raising such important questions.
I don’t usually reply fast to posts like this but fuck it here I go.
And it’s not because they’re not urgent rather it’s because the kind of work you’re doing don’t deserve a quick tap-back and a fist bump. It deserves to be felt. Sat with. Studied like scripture. And this one right here? This was more than a legal breakdown. This was a forensic sweep of something bigger: a damned generational theft hiding behind innovation’s good name.
You wrote:
“You cannot hoard wrongly obtained copyrighted materials—and call it innovation just because you ran it through ChatGPT and came out with something different.”
That hit like a low bassline in my chest. Because it ain’t just data they been laundering. It’s us. Our phrasing. Our frameworks. Our God-given rhythm and metaphor that shows up in decks and prompts and marketing copy… all chopped up and anonymized like it ain’t ever had no momma.
You laid it out plain but beautiful:
“We can build transformative tools and respect the humans whose ideas fuel them.”
That word respect? That’s the one they keep dodging.
Not permission. Not licensing. Respect.
I write from a different angle….less courtroom, more war room. But the battlefield is familiar. They don’t just want the stories. They want the soul baked into the syntax, stripped of authorship, softened with AI tone, and sold back to us like it was born in a lab. We’re watching the remixers become robber barons and you had the nerve to call it what it is without flinching.
“You can’t cloak yourself in the language of innovation and fair use while building a digital bookshelf full of stolen books.”
Man oh man.
I don’t even have a question for you right now. Just appreciation. Just Respect. And maybe… something else that ain’t easy to name here.
Because what you’re doing here? It ain’t just IP protection. You’re setting the terms of engagement for a new kind of creator economy. One rooted in ancestral memory and strategic clarity. One that says: we covered. We built this, and we’re gonna watch it be used in our name with intention or with consequences.
I see you.
I’ll keep reading slow.
And when you look up one day and notice a path already cleared where none should’ve been he’ll that’s just me and a pair of metaphorical wire cutters, doing what I do. Quietly. Thoroughly.
– Xplisset
This has to be the most affirming comment I have ever received. THANK YOU SO MUCH for really seeing and affirming me and my team. We did a deep dive into the Anthropic case, and spent way more time on this article, because we knew it mattered.
It matters for our community.
It matters for our readers.
And most of all, it matters for the culture.
I've been following this closely. My day job is IT. What it really comes down to is that our laws have been behind technology for the last 30 years. I expect to have AI delt with sometime around 2136.