環(huán)球音樂(lè)起訴亞馬遜支持的人工智能公司抄襲滾石樂(lè)隊(duì)、碧昂斯樂(lè)隊(duì)歌詞，索賠7500萬(wàn)美元

A trio of major music publishers are stepping into the legal battle against generative artificial intelligence to stop the use of their copyrighted material to train AI systems, this time in a lawsuit against Anthropic.
三家主要音樂(lè)出版商正在與生成式人工智能展開(kāi)法律斗爭(zhēng)，以停止使用其受版權(quán)保護(hù)的材料來(lái)訓(xùn)練人工智能系統(tǒng)，這一次是對(duì)Anthropic提起訴訟。

Universal Music Group, Concord Music Group and ABKCO sued the company in Tennessee federal court on Wednesday, accusing it of “systematic and widespread infringement” by copying and distributing lyrics from at least 500 songs from artists such as Katy Perry, The Rolling Stones and Beyoncé.
環(huán)球音樂(lè)集團(tuán)、康科德音樂(lè)集團(tuán)和ABKCO周三向田納西州聯(lián)邦法院起訴該公司，指控該公司“有系統(tǒng)、廣泛地侵權(quán)”，抄襲并散布凱蒂•佩里、滾石樂(lè)隊(duì)和碧昂斯等歌手的至少500首歌曲的歌詞。

The lawsuit, which is the first from a music publisher against an AI company over the use of lyrics, was filed in the wake of the Authors Guild — representing a host of prominent fiction authors including George R.R. Martin, Jonathan Franzen and John Grisham — suing OpenAI last month. The leading trade group for writers claimed that the Sam Altman-led company engaged “in a systematic course of mass-scale copyright infringement” to “power their lucrative commercial endeavor.” It marked at least the third legal action against OpenAI over its use of copyrighted books to train GPT.
這是音樂(lè)出版商首次就歌詞使用問(wèn)題起訴人工智能公司。上個(gè)月，美國(guó)作家協(xié)會(huì)起訴OpenAI，該協(xié)會(huì)代表了包括喬治·r·r·馬丁、喬納森·弗蘭岑和約翰·格里沙姆在內(nèi)的許多著名小說(shuō)作家。美國(guó)作家協(xié)會(huì)聲稱(chēng)，這家由山姆·奧特曼領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的公司“系統(tǒng)性地大規(guī)模侵犯版權(quán)”，以“為其利潤(rùn)豐厚的商業(yè)活動(dòng)提供動(dòng)力”。這至少是針對(duì)OpenAI使用受版權(quán)保護(hù)的書(shū)籍來(lái)訓(xùn)練GPT的第三次法律行動(dòng)。

“Anthropic has neither sought nor secured Publishers’ permission to use their valuable copyrighted works in this way,” states the complaint. “Just as Anthropic does not want its code taken without its authorization, neither do music publishers or any other copyright owners want their works to be exploited without permission.”
“Anthropic既沒(méi)有尋求也沒(méi)有獲得出版商的許可，以這種方式使用他們有價(jià)值的版權(quán)作品，”訴狀稱(chēng)。“正如Anthropic不希望其代碼在未經(jīng)授權(quán)的情況下被使用一樣，音樂(lè)出版商或任何其他版權(quán)所有者也不希望他們的作品在未經(jīng)許可的情況下被利用。”

As evidence of “Anthropic’s mass copying and ingestion of Publishers’ song lyrics,” the lawsuit points to the company’s Claude AI chatbot providing the lyrics to songs owned by the publishers. When asked the lyrics to Katy Perry’s “Roar,” which is owned by Concord, it provided an near-identical copy of the words in the piece.
作為“Anthropic大規(guī)模復(fù)制和吸收出版商的歌詞”的證據(jù)，該訴訟指出，該公司的Claude AI聊天機(jī)器人為出版商擁有的歌曲提供歌詞。當(dāng)被問(wèn)及凱蒂·佩里的《Roar》的歌詞時(shí)，康科德提供了一份幾乎完全相同的歌詞副本。

The publishers argue there’s already an existing market that’s being undercut by Anthropic, which is backed by Amazon, pilfering their material without consent or payment, citing music lyric aggregators and websites that have licensed their works. By refusing to license the content its profiting off of, the company is “depriving Publishers and their songwriters of control over their copyrighted works and the hard-earned benefits of their creative endeavors, it is competing unfairly against those website developers that respect the copyright law and pay for licenses, and it is undermining existing and future licensing markets in untold ways,” according to the complaint.
出版商認(rèn)為，亞馬遜支持的Anthropic在未經(jīng)同意或支付費(fèi)用的情況下竊取他們的作品，已經(jīng)形成了一個(gè)現(xiàn)有的市場(chǎng)，并引用了音樂(lè)歌詞聚合器和網(wǎng)站，這些網(wǎng)站已經(jīng)獲得了他們作品的許可。通過(guò)拒絕授權(quán)其獲利的內(nèi)容，該公司“剝奪了出版商及其詞曲作者對(duì)其版權(quán)作品的控制權(quán)，以及他們辛苦創(chuàng)造的收益，它與那些尊重版權(quán)法并支付許可費(fèi)用的網(wǎng)站開(kāi)發(fā)商進(jìn)行了不公平的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，并以無(wú)數(shù)的方式破壞了現(xiàn)有和未來(lái)的許可市場(chǎng)，”起訴書(shū)稱(chēng)。

The argument is meant to undermine Anthropic’s anticipated fair use defense, which was effectively reined in when the Supreme Court issued its recent decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith. In that case, the majority emphasized that an analysis of whether an allegedly infringing work was sufficiently transformed must be balanced against the “commercial nature of the use.” The music publishers are attempting to establish that Anthropic’s alleged copyright infringement hurt their prospects to profit off of the material by interfering with potential licensing deals for use of their lyrics.
這一論點(diǎn)意在削弱Anthropic預(yù)期的合理使用辯護(hù)，最高法院最近在安迪·沃霍爾視覺(jué)藝術(shù)基金會(huì)訴戈德史密斯案中做出的裁決有效地遏制了這一辯護(hù)。在該案中，多數(shù)人強(qiáng)調(diào)，對(duì)涉嫌侵權(quán)作品是否充分轉(zhuǎn)化的分析必須與“使用的商業(yè)性質(zhì)”相平衡。音樂(lè)出版商正試圖證明，Anthropic涉嫌侵犯版權(quán)的行為，干擾了使用他們歌詞的潛在許可協(xié)議，損害了他們從這些素材中獲利的前景。

Additionally, the lawsuit argues that Claude is generating answers that contain copyrighted lyrics even when it’s specifically asked not to do so, like in prompts to write a song, provide chord progressions, or write poetry in the style of a certain artist.
此外，該訴訟辯稱(chēng)，克勞德生成的答案包含受版權(quán)保護(hù)的歌詞，即使它被明確要求不要這樣做，比如在提示寫(xiě)歌、提供和弦進(jìn)行或以某個(gè)藝術(shù)家的風(fēng)格寫(xiě)詩(shī)時(shí)。

The music publishers claim direct copyright infringement, as well as vicarious and contributory infringement, among another claim for the allegedly illegal removal of copyright management information. They seek a court order to block Anthropic from continuing to use their copyrighted material and up to $150,000 in damages per infringement.
音樂(lè)出版商聲稱(chēng)直接侵犯版權(quán)，以及間接侵權(quán)和輔助侵權(quán)，以及據(jù)稱(chēng)非法刪除版權(quán)管理信息的另一項(xiàng)索賠。他們尋求法院命令，阻止Anthropic繼續(xù)使用他們的版權(quán)材料，并要求每次侵權(quán)賠償高達(dá)15萬(wàn)美元。

In a statement, Matthew Oppenheim, a lawyer representing the publishers, said, “It is well established by copyright law that an entity cannot reproduce, distribute, and display someone else’s copyrighted works to build its own business unless it secures permission from rightsholders.”
代表出版商的律師馬修·奧本海姆在一份聲明中表示，“版權(quán)法明確規(guī)定，除非獲得版權(quán)所有者的許可，否則實(shí)體不得復(fù)制、分發(fā)和展示他人的版權(quán)作品，以建立自己的業(yè)務(wù)。”