公職選挙法施行令の一部を改正する政令（案）等に対する意見募集の結果

東日本電信電話株式会社及び西日本電信電話株式会社の提供する特定電気通信役務の基準料金指数の設定及び通知

「令和6年度情報通信メディアの利用時間と情報行動に関する調査報告書」の公表

電波法関係審査基準の一部を改正する訓令案等に係る意見募集

地方自治法施行規則等の一部を改正する省令（案）に対する意見募集

「医用テレメータの電波管理実践ガイド」の公表

2024年度　青少年のインターネット・リテラシー指標等に係る調査結果の公表

「消費者保護ルールの在り方に関する検討会報告書2025（案）」 に対する意見募集

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　陸上無線通信委員会　900MHz帯自営用無線システム高度化作業班（第9回）

通信ログ保存の在り方に関するワーキンググループ（第7回）

第133回サービス統計・企業統計部会

生活道路における交通安全対策に関する政策評価　＜評価結果及び意見の通知＞

電気通信市場検証会議（第45回）会議資料

労働力調査（基本集計）2025年（令和7年）5月分

2020年基準 消費者物価指数 東京都区部 2025年(令和7年)6月分(中旬速報値)

情報通信審議会　情報通信技術分科会　電波有効利用委員会　電波監視作業班（第2回）

Things are speeding up in generative AI legal cases, with two judicial opinions just out on an issue that will shape the future of generative AI: whether training gen-AI models on copyrighted works is fair use. One gets it spot on; the other, not so much, but fortunately in a way that future courts can and should discount.

The core question in both cases was whether using copyrighted works to train Large Language Models (LLMs) used in AI chatbots is a lawful fair use. Under the US Copyright Act, answering that question requires courts to consider:

1. whether the use was transformative;
2. the nature of the works (Are they more creative than factual? Long since published?)
3. how much of the original was used; and
4. the harm to the market for the original work.

In both cases, the judges focused on factors (1) and (4).

The right approach

In Bartz v. Anthropic, three authors sued Anthropic for using their books to train its Claude chatbot. In his order deciding parts of the case, Judge William Alsup confirmed what EFF has said for years: fair use protects the use of copyrighted works for training because, among other things, training gen-AI is “transformative—spectacularly so” and any alleged harm to the market for the original is pure speculation. Just as copying books or images to create search engines is fair, the court held, copying books to create a new, “transformative” LLM and related technologies is also protected:

[U]sing copyrighted works to train LLMs to generate new text was quintessentially transformative. Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them—but to turn a hard corner and create something different. If this training process reasonably required making copies within the LLM or otherwise, those copies were engaged in a transformative use.

Importantly, Bartz rejected the copyright holders’ attempts to claim that any model capable of generating new written material that might compete with existing works by emulating their “sweeping themes, “substantive points,” or “grammar, composition, and style” was an infringement machine. As the court rightly recognized, building gen-AI models that create new works is beyond “anything that any copyright owner rightly could expect to control.” 

There’s a lot more to like about the Bartz ruling, but just as we were digesting it Kadrey v. Meta Platforms came out. Sadly, this decision bungles the fair use analysis.

A fumble on fair use

Kadrey is another suit by authors against the developer of an AI model, in this case Meta’s ‘Llama’ chatbot. The authors in Kadrey asked the court to rule that fair use did not apply.

Much of the Kadrey ruling by Judge Vince Chhabria is dicta—meaning, the opinion spends many paragraphs on what it thinks could justify ruling in favor of the author plaintiffs, if only they had managed to present different facts (rather than pure speculation). The court then rules in Meta’s favor because the plaintiffs only offered speculation. 

But it makes a number of errors along the way to the right outcome. At the top, the ruling broadly proclaims that training AI without buying a license to use each and every piece of copyrighted training material will be “illegal” in “most cases.” The court asserted that fair use usually won’t apply to AI training uses even though training is a “highly transformative” process, because of hypothetical “market dilution” scenarios where competition from AI-generated works could reduce the value of the books used to train the AI model..

That theory, in turn, depends on three mistaken premises. First, that the most important factor for determining fair use is whether the use might cause market harm. That’s not correct. Since its seminal 1994 opinion in Cambell v Acuff-Rose, the Supreme Court has been very clear that no single factor controls the fair use analysis.

Second, that an AI developer would typically seek to train a model entirely on a certain type of work, and then use that model to generate new works in the exact same genre, which would then compete with the works on which it was trained, such that the market for the original works is harmed. As the Kadrey ruling notes, there was no evidence that Llama was intended to to, or does, anything like that, nor will most LLMs for the exact reasons discussed in Bartz.

Third, as a matter of law, copyright doesn't prevent “market dilution” unless the new works are otherwise infringing. In fact, the whole purpose of copyright is to be an engine for new expression. If that new expression competes with existing works, that’s a feature, not a bug.

Gen-AI is spurring the kind of tech panics we’ve seen before; then, as now, thoughtful fair use opinions helped ensure that copyright law served innovation and creativity. Gen-AI does raise a host of other serious concerns about fair labor practices and misinformation, but copyright wasn’t designed to address those problems. Trying to force copyright law to play those roles only hurts important and legal uses of this technology.

In keeping with that tradition, courts deciding fair use in other AI copyright cases should look to Bartz, not Kadrey.

著者は東京新聞が２０１４年にＪＣＪ大賞を受賞したときの編集局長だった。受賞理由は「憲法、安保、原発―ズバリ核心を突く１面の＜論点明示報道＞」であった。 本書で著者は「受賞の知らせを聞いたときは正直、戸惑った。『論点明示報道』とは初めて聞いた言葉だった」と書いている。そうか…、局長は知らなかったのか！　当時、現場の局デスクのＩさんとは話したが、確かに「論点明示報道」は、推薦委員会段階での私や故阿部裕事務局長の考えた言葉だった。　政治記事では、「問題点」や「論点」は、｢事..

This week, EFF joined EDRi and nearly 50 civil society organizations urging the European Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen, Executive Vice President Henna Virkunnen, and Commissioners Michael McGrath and Hadja Lahbib to take immediate action and defend human rights in Hungary.

The European Commission has a responsibility to protect EU fundamental rights, including the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in Hungary and across the Union

With Budapest Pride just two days away, Hungary has criminalized Pride marches and is planning to deploy real-time facial recognition technology to identify those participating in the event. This is a flagrant violation of fundamental rights, particularly the rights to free expression and assembly.

On April 15, a new amendment package went into effect in Hungary which authorizes the use of real-time facial recognition to identify protesters at ‘banned protests’ like LGBTQ+ events, and includes harsh penalties like excessive fines and imprisonment. This is prohibited by the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, which does not permit the use of real-time face recognition for these purposes.

This came on the back of members of Hungary’s Parliament rushing through three amendments in March to ban and criminalize Pride marches and their organizers, and permit the use of real-time facial recognition technologies for the identification of protestors. These amendments were passed without public consultation and are in express violation of the EU AI Act and Charter of Fundamental Rights. In response, civil society organizations urged the European Commission to put interim measures in place to rectify the violation of fundamental rights and values. The Commission is yet to respond—a real cause of concern.

This is an attack on LGBTQ+ individuals, as well as an attack on the rights of all people in Hungary. The letter urges the European Commission to take the following actions:

• Open an infringement procedure against any new violations of EU law, in particular the violation of Article 5 of the AI Act
• Adopt interim measures on ongoing infringement against Hungary’s 2021 anti LGBT law which is used as a legal basis for the ban on LGBTQIA+ related public assemblies, including Budapest Pride.

There's no question that, when EU law is at stake, the European Commission has a responsibility to protect EU fundamental rights, including the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in Hungary and across the Union. This includes ensuring that those organizing and marching at Pride in Budapest are safe and able to peacefully assemble and protest. If the EU Commission does not urgently act to ensure these rights, it risks hollowing out the values that the EU is built from.

Read our full letter to the Commission here.