Can a group of high-profile authors write history when it comes to AI and copyright law?

Sarah Silverman, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Junot Díaz are among those suing Meta in a copyright infringement case that could set an important precedent for how the law treats the training of generative AI systems.

Federal District Judge Vince Chhabria presided over a San Francisco courtroom hearing in that case last week, questioning lawyers on both sides about their respective arguments for hours.

The authors, represented by a legal team led by attorney David Boies, argue that Meta’s use of peer-to-peer file sharing sites to access “millions” of copyrighted works, including the authors’ books, constitutes “massive copyright infringement.”

Meta’s own motion argues that its training process constitutes fair use, a copyright law doctrine that allows for certain transformative uses of copyrighted materials for purposes like news reporting, research, and parody.

The case is one of several in the courts right now between GenAI companies and the media companies, publishers, and artists whose work was used to train models. Because these AI companies are similarly arguing that their training constitutes fair use, Chhabria’s decision could be a major signpost for how the law treats these issues.

Keep reading here.—PK

Workers are blazing ahead with AI tools, whether or not their employers are on board—and that could cause headaches for companies.

That’s one takeaway from a new AI and trust report from KPMG, for which the accounting firm and consultancy surveyed 48,000 people around the world with help from University of Melbourne researchers.

Half of US respondents said they tapped AI at work, despite not knowing whether it’s allowed, and 44% said they’re “knowingly using it improperly.” That includes uploading sensitive information or intellectual property to public AI platforms, which 46% of those in the US admitted to doing.

The survey also pointed to the potential for slipping quality due to AI use. Around three in five (64%) of Americans surveyed “admit to putting less effort into their work, knowing they can rely on AI;” 58% said they don’t thoroughly vet outputs; and 57% have made mistakes at work as a result.

Keep reading here.—PK

Proponents of clean energy tax credits aren’t going down without a fight—if they’re even going down at all.

Amid negotiations over the 2026 budget, Republicans have discussed repealing the Inflation Reduction Act and its clean energy tax credits, claiming it’s a means to cut costs. But green tech business leaders and associations (and some congressional Republicans, too) have made it clear they don’t want that to happen. And last week, they appealed to Congress again in a letter signed by 272 business leaders and trade associations, including PG&E, E2, and the American Clean Power Association.

“These credits are the basis for significant manufacturing investment and jobs in the United States,” the letter said, “promoting greater efficiency, growth in energy production, and the delivery of the capacity needed to keep our country at the leading edge of global energy innovation.”

The letter also noted that it’s not just investment and jobs that would be jeopardized if the tax credits were cut—market stability would be, too: “Now is not the time to disrupt the market by changing the current energy tax structure,” the signatories wrote. As Tech Brew has reported, the current atmosphere of uncertainty around the fate of the tax credits—though they remain standing—has already caused almost $8 billion in lost clean tech investments.

Keep reading here.—TC

Over the past 25 years, tech has transformed every aspect of life—but has it delivered on its promises? Tech Brew explores the innovations, effects, and unanswered questions shaping our digital age.