July 2, 2025
Authored and Edited by Anna B. Chauvet; Alyssa S. Mottahed; Kevin C. Lam
The week of June 23, 2025 saw a flurry of high-impact decisions concerning copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). Two judges in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued substantive decisions regarding fair use and generative AI model training. Both courts found fair use and that using copyrighted works to train large language models (LLMs) is highly transformative.
On June 23, 2025, in Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, the court granted summary judgment for defendant Anthropic PBC, finding that using copyrighted works for training LLMs was a fair use, and that Anthropic’s creation of a digital library by purchasing and digitizing millions of print books was likewise a fair use. The court, however, found that Anthropic’s use of downloaded pirated copies of books to build its central library was not justified as fair use, and thus denied summary judgment for Anthropic on its argument that the pirated library copies must be treated as training copies.
Just two days later, on June 25, 2025, the court in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. granted defendant Meta’s motion for summary judgment on its fair use defense against claims that using the plaintiffs’ books for LLM training is copyright infringement.
Given the number of pending cases involving issues of fair use and AI model training, these decisions may influence how other courts approach these issues.
Read more on Bartz v. Anthropic PBC here and Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. here.
AI + Copyright, Northern District of California, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), literary works
Copyright © 2025 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Netflix Prevails in Copyright Infringement Suit Regarding Tiger King
May 14, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Reverses Indefiniteness Ruling on Means-Plus-Function Claim
April 15, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.