Meta’s AI Copyright Win: What It Means for Fair Use Policy and India
In a recent ruling, a U.S. federal judge sided with Meta in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of prominent authors who alleged that their works were illegally used to train Meta’s LLaMA language model. While this seems like a significant legal victory for the tech giant, it may not be so. Rather, this is a good case study for creators in the USA to refine their legal strategies and for policymakers worldwide to act quickly to shape the rules of engagement between AI and intellectual property.
The Case: Meta vs. Authors
In Kadrey v. Meta, the plaintiffs alleged that Meta trained its LLaMA models on pirated copies of their books, violating copyright law. However, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the authors failed to prove two critical things: that their copyrighted works had been used in a way that harmed their market and that such use was not “transformative.” In fact, the judge ruled that converting text into numerical representations to train an AI was sufficiently transformative under the U.S. fair use doctrine. He also noted that the authors’ failure to demonstrate economic harm undermined their claims. Importantly, he clarified that this ruling does not mean that all AI training data usage is lawful, only that the plaintiffs didn’t make a strong enough case.
Meta even admitted that some data was sourced from pirate sites like LibGen, but the Judge still found that fair use could apply because the usage was transformative and non-exploitative.
A Tenuous Win
Chhabria’s decision emphasised that this is not a blanket endorsement of using copyrighted content in AI training. The judgment leaned heavily on the procedural weakness of the case and not necessarily on the inherent legality of Meta’s practices.
Policy experts are warning that U.S. courts are currently interpreting AI training as fair use in narrow cases, but the rulings may not set the strongest judicial precedent. The application of law could change with clearer evidence of commercial harm or a more direct use of content.
Moreover, the ruling does not address whether authors or publishers should have the right to opt out of AI model training, a concern that is gaining momentum globally.
Implications for India
The case highlights a glaring gap in India’s copyright regime: it is outdated. Since most AI companies are located in the U.S., courts have had the opportunity to examine copyright in the context of AI-generated content. India has yet to start. Recently, news agency ANI filed a case alleging copyright infringement against OpenAI for training on its copyrighted material. However, the case is only at an interim stage. The final outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the legality of these language models being able to use copyrighted material for training.
Considering that India aims to develop “state-of-the-art foundational AI models trained on Indian datasets” under the IndiaAI Mission, the lack of clear legal guidance on what constitutes fair dealing when using copyrighted material for AI training is a significant gap.
Thus, key points of consideration for policymakers include:
- Need for Fair Dealing Clarity: India’s fair-dealing provisions under the Copyright Act, 1957, are narrower than U.S. fair use. The doctrine may have to be reviewed to strike a balance between this law and the requirement of diverse datasets to develop foundational models rooted in Indian contexts. A parallel concern regarding data privacy also arises.
- Push for Opt-Out or Licensing Mechanisms: India should consider whether to introduce a framework that requires companies to license training data or provide an opt-out system for creators, especially given the volume of Indian content being scraped by global AI systems.
- Digital Public Infrastructure for AI: India’s policymakers could take this opportunity to invest in public datasets, especially in regional languages, that are both high quality and legally safe for AI training.
- Protecting Local Creators: India needs to ensure that its authors, filmmakers, educators and journalists are protected from having their work repurposed without compensation, since power asymmetries between Big Tech and local creators can lead to exploitation of the latter.
Conclusion
The ruling in Meta’s favour is just one win for the developer. The real questions about consent, compensation and creative control remain unanswered. Meanwhile, the lesson for India is urgent: it needs AI policies that balance innovation with creator rights and provide legal certainty and ethical safeguards as it accelerates its AI ecosystem. Further, as global tech firms race ahead, India must not remain a passive data source; it must set the terms of its digital future. This will help the country move a step closer to achieving its goal of building sovereign AI capacity and becoming a hub for digital innovation.
References
- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/26/meta-wins-ai-copyright-lawsuit-as-us-judge-rules-against-authors
- https://www.wired.com/story/meta-scores-victory-ai-copyright-case/
- https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/25/meta-llama-ai-copyright-ruling.html
- https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1348352/what-is-fair-use-of-copyright-doctrine
- https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2113095#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20pillars,models%20trained%20on%20Indian%20datasets.
- https://www.ndtvprofit.com/law-and-policy/ani-vs-openai-delhi-high-court-seeks-responses-on-copyright-infringement-charges-against-chatgpt
Related Blogs
Introduction
Misinformation regarding health is sensitive and can have far-reaching consequences. These include its effect on personal medical decisions taken by individuals, lack of trust in conventional medicine, delay in seeking treatments, and even loss of life. The fast-paced nature and influx of information on social media can aggravate the situation further. Recently, a report titled Health Misinformation Vectors in India was presented at the Health of India Summit, 2024. It provided certain key insights into health-related misinformation circulating online.
The Health Misinformation Vectors in India Report
The analysis was conducted by the doctors at First Check, a global health fact-checking initiative alongside DataLEADS, a Delhi-based digital media and technology company. The report covers health-related social media content that was posted online from October 2023 to November 2024. It mentions that among all the health scares, misinformation regarding reproductive health, cancer, vaccines, and lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and obesity is the most prominent type that is spread through social media. Misinformation regarding reproductive health includes illegal abortion methods that often go unchecked and even tips on conceiving a male child, among other things.
In order to combat this misinformation, the report encourages stricter regulations regarding health-related content on digital media, inculcating technology for health literacy and misinformation management in public health curricula and recommending tech platforms to work on algorithms that prioritise credible information and fact-checks. Doctors state that people affected by life-threatening diseases are particularly vulnerable to such misinformation, as they are desperate to seek options for treatment for themselves and their family members to have a chance at life. In a diverse society, with the lack of clear and credible information, limited access to or awareness about tools that cross-check content, and low digital literacy, people gravitate towards alternate sources of information which also fosters a sense of disengagement among the public overall. The diseases mentioned in the report, which are prone to misinformation, are life-altering and require attention from healthcare professionals.
CyberPeace Outlook
Globally, there are cases of medically-unqualified social media influencers who disperse false/mis- information regarding various health matters. The topics covered are mostly associated with stigma and are still undergoing research. This gap allows for misinformation to be fostered. An example is misinformation regarding PCOS( Polycystic Ovary Syndrome) which is circulating online.
In the midst of all of this, YouTube has released a new feature that aligns with combating health misinformation, trying to bridge the gap between healthcare professionals and Indians who look for trustworthy health-related information online. The initiative includes a feature that allows doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals to sign up for a health information source license. This would help by labeling all their informative videos, as addressed- from a healthcare professional. Earlier, this feature was available only for health organisations including a health source information panel and health content shelves, but this step broadens the scope for verification of licenses of individual healthcare professionals.
As digital literacy continues to grow, methods of seeking credible information, especially regarding sensitive topics such as health, require a combined effort on the part of all the stakeholders involved. We need a robust strategy for battling health-related misinformation online, including more awareness programmes and proactive participation from the consumers as well as medical professionals regarding such content.
References
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/misinformation-about-cancer-reproductive-health-is-widespread-in-india-impacting-medical-decisions-says-report/articleshow/115931612.cms
- https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/cancer-misinformation-prevalent-in-india-trust-in-medicine-crucial-report-7165458
- https://www.newindian.in/ai-driven-health-misinformation-poses-threat-to-indias-public-health-report/
- https://www.etvbharat.com/en/!health/youtube-latest-initiative-combat-health-misinformation-india-enn24121002361
- https://blog.google/intl/en-in/products/platforms/new-ways-for-registered-healthcare-professionals-in-india-to-reach-people-on-youtube/
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgz2p0999yo
Introduction
In the digital realm of social media, Meta Platforms, the driving force behind Facebook and Instagram, faces intense scrutiny following The Wall Street Journal's investigative report. This exploration delves deeper into critical issues surrounding child safety on these widespread platforms, unravelling algorithmic intricacies, enforcement dilemmas, and the ethical maze surrounding monetisation features. Instances of "parent-managed minor accounts" leveraging Meta's subscription tools to monetise content featuring young individuals have raised eyebrows. While skirting the line of legality, this practice prompts concerns due to its potential appeal to adults and the associated inappropriate interactions. It's a nuanced issue demanding nuanced solutions.
Failed Algorithms
The very heartbeat of Meta's digital ecosystem, its algorithms, has come under intense scrutiny. These algorithms, designed to curate and deliver content, were found to actively promoting accounts featuring explicit content to users with known pedophilic interests. The revelation sparks a crucial conversation about the ethical responsibilities tied to the algorithms shaping our digital experiences. Striking the right balance between personalised content delivery and safeguarding users is a delicate task.
While algorithms play a pivotal role in tailoring content to users' preferences, Meta needs to reevaluate the algorithms to ensure they don't inadvertently promote inappropriate content. Stricter checks and balances within the algorithmic framework can help prevent the inadvertent amplification of content that may exploit or endanger minors.
Major Enforcement Challenges
Meta's enforcement challenges have come to light as previously banned parent-run accounts resurrect, gaining official verification and accumulating large followings. The struggle to remove associated backup profiles adds layers to concerns about the effectiveness of Meta's enforcement mechanisms. It underscores the need for a robust system capable of swift and thorough actions against policy violators.
To enhance enforcement mechanisms, Meta should invest in advanced content detection tools and employ a dedicated team for consistent monitoring. This proactive approach can mitigate the risks associated with inappropriate content and reinforce a safer online environment for all users.
The financial dynamics of Meta's ecosystem expose concerns about the exploitation of videos that are eligible for cash gifts from followers. The decision to expand the subscription feature before implementing adequate safety measures poses ethical questions. Prioritising financial gains over user safety risks tarnishing the platform's reputation and trustworthiness. A re-evaluation of this strategy is crucial for maintaining a healthy and secure online environment.
To address safety concerns tied to monetisation features, Meta should consider implementing stricter eligibility criteria for content creators. Verifying the legitimacy and appropriateness of content before allowing it to be monetised can act as a preventive measure against the exploitation of the system.
Meta's Response
In the aftermath of the revelations, Meta's spokesperson, Andy Stone, took centre stage to defend the company's actions. Stone emphasised ongoing efforts to enhance safety measures, asserting Meta's commitment to rectifying the situation. However, critics argue that Meta's response lacks the decisive actions required to align with industry standards observed on other platforms. The debate continues over the delicate balance between user safety and the pursuit of financial gain. A more transparent and accountable approach to addressing these concerns is imperative.
To rebuild trust and credibility, Meta needs to implement concrete and visible changes. This includes transparent communication about the steps taken to address the identified issues, continuous updates on progress, and a commitment to a user-centric approach that prioritises safety over financial interests.
The formation of a task force in June 2023 was a commendable step to tackle child sexualisation on the platform. However, the effectiveness of these efforts remains limited. Persistent challenges in detecting and preventing potential child safety hazards underscore the need for continuous improvement. Legislative scrutiny adds an extra layer of pressure, emphasising the urgency for Meta to enhance its strategies for user protection.
To overcome ongoing challenges, Meta should collaborate with external child safety organisations, experts, and regulators. Open dialogues and partnerships can provide valuable insights and recommendations, fostering a collaborative approach to creating a safer online environment.
Drawing a parallel with competitors such as Patreon and OnlyFans reveals stark differences in child safety practices. While Meta grapples with its challenges, these platforms maintain stringent policies against certain content involving minors. This comparison underscores the need for universal industry standards to safeguard minors effectively. Collaborative efforts within the industry to establish and adhere to such standards can contribute to a safer digital environment for all.
To align with industry standards, Meta should actively participate in cross-industry collaborations and adopt best practices from platforms with successful child safety measures. This collaborative approach ensures a unified effort to protect users across various digital platforms.
Conclusion
Navigating the intricate landscape of child safety concerns on Meta Platforms demands a nuanced and comprehensive approach. The identified algorithmic failures, enforcement challenges, and controversies surrounding monetisation features underscore the urgency for Meta to reassess and fortify its commitment to being a responsible digital space. As the platform faces this critical examination, it has an opportunity to not only rectify the existing issues but to set a precedent for ethical and secure social media engagement.
This comprehensive exploration aims not only to shed light on the existing issues but also to provide a roadmap for Meta Platforms to evolve into a safer and more responsible digital space. The responsibility lies not just in acknowledging shortcomings but in actively working towards solutions that prioritise the well-being of its users.
References
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/instagram-facebook-prioritised-money-over-child-safety-claims-report/articleshow/107952778.cms
- https://www.adweek.com/blognetwork/meta-staff-found-instagram-tool-enabled-child-exploitation-the-company-pressed-ahead-anyway/107604/
- https://www.tbsnews.net/tech/meta-staff-found-instagram-subscription-tool-facilitated-child-exploitation-yet-company
About Global Commission on Internet Governance
The Global Commission on Internet Governance was established in January 2014 with the goal of formulating and advancing a strategic vision for Internet governance going forward. Independent research on Internet-related issues of international public policy is carried out and supported over the two-year initiative. An official commission report with particular policy recommendations for the future of Internet governance will be made available as a result of this initiative.
There are two goals for the Global Commission on Internet Governance. First, it will encourage a broad and inclusive public discussion on how Internet governance will develop globally. Second, through its comprehensive policy-oriented report and the subsequent marketing of this final report, the Global Commission on Internet Governance will present its findings to key stakeholders at major Internet governance events.
The Internet: exploring the world wide web and the deep web
The Internet can be thought of as a vast networking infrastructure, or network of networks. By linking millions of computers worldwide, it creates a network that allows any two computers, provided they are both online, to speak with one another.
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol is the only language spoken over the Internet and is used by the Web to transfer data. Email, which depends on File Transfer Protocol, Usenet newsgroups, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, and instant messaging, is also used on the Internet—not the Web. Thus, even though it's a sizable chunk, the Web is only a part of the Internet [1]. In summary, the deep Web is the portion of the Internet that is not visible to the naked eye. It is stuff from the World Wide Web that isn't available on the main Web. Standard search engines cannot reach it. More than 500 times larger than the visible Web is this enormous subset of the Internet [1-2].
The Global Commission on Internet Governance will concentrate on four principal themes:
• Improving the legitimacy of government, including standards and methods for regulation;
• Promoting economic innovation and expansion, including the development of infrastructure, competition laws, and vital Internet resources;
• Safeguarding online human rights, including establishing the idea of technological neutrality for rights to privacy, human rights, and freedom of expression;
• Preventing systemic risk includes setting standards for state behaviour, cooperating with law enforcement to combat cybercrime, preventing its spread, fostering confidence, and addressing disarmament-related issues.
Dark Web
The part of the deep Web that has been purposefully concealed and is unreachable using conventional Web browsers is known as the "dark Web." Dark Web sites are a platform for Internet users who value their anonymity since they shield users from prying eyes and typically utilize encryption to thwart monitoring. The Tor network is a well-known source for content that may be discovered on the dark web. Only a unique Web browser known as the Tor browser is required to access the anonymous Tor network (Tor 2014). It was a technique for anonymous online communication that the US Naval Research Laboratory first introduced as The Onion Routing (Tor) project in 2002. Many of the functionality offered by Tor are also available on I2P, another network. On the other hand, I2P was intended to function as a network inside the Internet, with traffic contained within its boundaries. Better anonymous access to the open Internet is offered by Tor, while a more dependable and stable "network within the network" is provided by I2P [3].
Cybersecurity in the dark web
Cyber crime is not any different than crime in the real world — it is just executed in a new medium: “Virtual criminality’ is basically the same as the terrestrial crime with which we are familiar. To be sure, some of the manifestations are new. But a great deal of crime committed with or against computers differs only in terms of the medium. While the technology of implementation, and particularly its efficiency, may be without precedent, the crime is fundamentally familiar. It is less a question of something completely different than a recognizable crime committed in a completely different way [4].”
Dark web monitoring
The dark Web, in general, and the Tor network, in particular, offer a secure platform for cybercriminals to support a vast amount of illegal activities — from anonymous marketplaces to secure means of communication, to an untraceable and difficult to shut down infrastructure for deploying malware and botnets.
As such, it has become increasingly important for security agencies to track and monitor the activities in the dark Web, focusing today on Tor networks, but possibly extending to other technologies in the near future. Due to its intricate webbing and design, monitoring the dark Web will continue to pose significant challenges. Efforts to address it should be focused on the areas discussed below [5].
Hidden service directory of dark web
A domain database used by both Tor and I2P is based on a distributed system called a "distributed hash table," or DHT. In order for a DHT to function, its nodes must cooperate to store and manage a portion of the database, which takes the shape of a key-value store. Owing to the distributed character of the domain resolution process for hidden services, nodes inside the DHT can be positioned to track requests originating from a certain domain [6].
Conclusion
The deep Web, and especially dark Web networks like Tor (2004), offer bad actors a practical means of transacting in products anonymously and lawfully.
The absence of discernible activity in non-traditional dark web networks is not evidence of their nonexistence. As per the guiding philosophy of the dark web, the actions are actually harder to identify and monitor. Critical mass is one of the market's driving forces. It seems unlikely that operators on the black Web will require a great degree of stealth until the repercussions are severe enough, should they be caught. It is possible that certain websites might go down, have a short trading window, and then reappear, which would make it harder to look into them.
References
- Ciancaglini, Vincenzo, Marco Balduzzi, Max Goncharov and Robert McArdle. 2013. “Deepweb and Cybercrime: It’s Not All About TOR.” Trend Micro Research Paper. October.
- Coughlin, Con. 2014. “How Social Media Is Helping Islamic State to Spread Its Poison.” The Telegraph, November 5.
- Dahl, Julia. 2014. “Identity Theft Ensnares Millions while the Law Plays Catch Up.” CBS News, July 14.
- Dean, Matt. 2014. “Digital Currencies Fueling Crime on the Dark Side of the Internet.” Fox Business, December 18.
- Falconer, Joel. 2012. “A Journey into the Dark Corners of the Deep Web.” The Next Web, October 8.
- Gehl, Robert W. 2014. “Power/Freedom on the Dark Web: A Digital Ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network.” New Media & Society, October 15. http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/ 10/16/1461444814554900.full#ref-38.
