Analysis of Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta

This assignment is part of a chapter on a piece I am currently working on which analyses the following cases: Bartz v Anthropic / Kadrey v. Meta. The overall piece this case analysis is part of, is my study on the boundaries of fair use when it comes to generative AI. However, your task is to analyse the cases.

• Start with an introduction (about 200 to 300 words): State clearly that this is a current law analysis (not a normative proposal); briefly introduce the two cases and their relationship (same technology and similar facts); structure of the chapter (analysis Kadrey, analysis Bartz, conclusion).
• After the introduction you can discuss the two cases separately (integrate Warhol into the discussion of both cases rather than discussing separately). Make sure to structure your discussion of the cases. Start with the factual and procedural background (who are the parties, what do parties claim about fair use, what legal question did the court had decide in relation to fair use); factor-by-factor fair use analysis (purpose and character of the use, nature of the copyrighted works, amount and substantiality, effect on the market); outcome and scope of the holding.
• You can end the chapter with a conclusion based on what the courts have decided (both courts agree training is transformative; both reject automatic licensing markets; they diverge on market harm and evidentiary thresholds; state clearly what the current law looks like (training on copyrighted works can qualify as fair use but fair use is fact-, model-, and market-specific; market dilution is a legally cognizable theory, but not an easy one to prove); Clarify the evidentiary lesson (plaintiffs must show more than fear or abstraction; defendants cannot rely on transformativeness alone). Finish with a bridge to the next chapter (literature discussion).

Start with Bartz to discuss the criticism on Kadrey

I have attached both cases below. ONLY USE THE DOCUMENTS I ATTACHED TO REFERENCE THE CASES. No AI and No Plagiarism.

THE PROFESSOR HAS STRESSED THE NECESSITY OF MENTIONING RELEVANT FACTS TO THE CASES. After that, Go into detail of what the court says, how the court distinguished between these type of fair use and what cases they used.