AI copyright wars legal commentary: In the Kadrey case, why did Judge Chhabria do the unusual thing he did? And, what might he do next?

Understanding the AI Copyright Dispute: Unpacking Judge Chhabria’s Unusual Ruling and Its Implications

The legal battles surrounding artificial intelligence and intellectual property continue to evolve at a rapid pace. A recent case that has garnered attention is Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., decided by District Court Judge Vince Chhabria. His decision not only defied typical judicial expectations but also introduced some intriguing new legal theories about fair use and copyright protection in the context of AI-generated content. Here’s a detailed look at what happened, why it’s significant, and what future steps might unfold.

A Surprising Judicial Approach in the Kadrey Case

On June 25th, 2024, Judge Vince Chhabria issued a comprehensive forty-page opinion addressing copyright disputes involving AI systems. Traditionally, a judge’s role is to resolve the specific issues presented in a case. However, in this instance, Judge Chhabria took a different route. While he ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs’ copyright claims—since they had not explicitly argued in line with his emerging theories—his opinion laid out a novel argument that could change the legal landscape.

He acknowledged that, under the theories the plaintiffs had advanced, they should have won their case. Yet, because they did not frame their arguments around a particular emerging concept—referred to as “market dilution” or “indirect substitution”—he dismissed their claims. Instead, without being asked, the judge introduced this third, unpleaded theory—what lawyers call obiter dicta—which is not binding but can be influential. He detailed how this new theory might have led to a different outcome, potentially even without a trial.

This move raises some questions: Why would a judge go beyond his immediate task and introduce a new theory not argued by either side? This isn’t common practice, and legal doctrine generally considers such dicta as persuasive but not controlling. Nevertheless, the detailed nature of this dicta suggests the judge’s interest in advancing or exploring this novel legal concept.

The Clash of Legal Perspectives

Judge Chhabria’s unconventional approach reflects a broader debate within the judiciary about how to interpret fair use in the age of AI. He advocates for a progressive perspective, emphasizing the potential harm to content creators and proposing that certain indirect market effects could serve as a basis for copyright protection. Conversely, Judge William Alsup, a senior judge who also presides over similar cases, has taken a more traditional view. Just days before, in *