Meta’s Legal Victory in AI Copyright Lawsuit: Implications for Global and Australian Legal Frameworks
At Law Squared, we, like many in the legal and tech communities, are closely monitoring the evolving landscape of AI and copyright.
In June 2025, a significant development occurred when a U.S. federal judge ruled in favor of Meta Platforms Inc. in a copyright lawsuit brought by authors including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates. The authors alleged that Meta had unlawfully used their works to train its AI system, LLaMA.
However, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria determined that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that Meta’s actions harmed the market for their work, a requirement under U.S. copyright law. Judge Chhabria emphasized that this ruling does not imply that all uses of copyrighted materials for AI training are lawful, noting that in many circumstances, such uses could be unlawful.
This decision is part of a broader legal discourse on the intersection of AI and copyright law. While it provides some clarity, it also underscores the complexities and ongoing debates in this area.
Implications for Australia
As these global developments unfold, it's crucial to consider their implications within the Australian legal context:
Copying Works into AI Models: In Australia, directly copying copyrighted works into AI models without authorisation is likely a breach of copyright law or contract.
Training AI on Copyrighted Works: The use of copyrighted materials to train AI models presents a more nuanced issue. While not explicitly addressed in Australian law, the principles of fair dealing and the need for a transformative use could be relevant considerations.
AI-Generated Works: Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), works generated by AI may not qualify for copyright protection, as the Act requires human authorship for a work to be 'original'. This creates a gap in the legal framework, highlighting the need for reform to address the challenges posed by AI-generated content.
Denmark’s Proposal: To make human likenesses subject to copyright protection is an interesting development, and should be considered by legislators in future copyright considerations as AI.
Given these complexities, it's imperative for Australian lawmakers to consider international developments and engage in discussions to update and refine the legal framework to effectively address the nuances of AI and copyright law.
At Law Squared, we are actively engaged in this space, having submitted responses to the Digital Services and Infrastructure Review (DSIR) and Treasury's discussion papers in the past two years. Our involvement underscores our commitment to shaping and understanding the evolving legal landscape surrounding AI and its implications.