Major US Newspapers Sue Perplexity Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
In a move that highlights the ongoing battle between traditional media and AI companies, The New York Times and Chicago Tribune have filed separate lawsuits against Perplexity, accusing the AI firm of copyright infringement. Despite sending multiple cease-and-desist demands to Perplexity, the company allegedly continued to scrape content from The Times' website to train its AI models.
The New York Times claims that Perplexity infringed on its copyrights in two main areas. Firstly, by using scraped content to feed into its AI models and products like Claude chatbot and Comet browser. Secondly, by reproducing articles verbatim in the output of its generative AI products, damaging The Times' brand with false attributions of fabricated information.
Chicago Tribune has also filed a similar lawsuit against Perplexity, alleging that the company's genAI products generate identical or substantially similar outputs to its own content. According to the newspaper, Perplexity has unlawfully copied millions of copyrighted Chicago Tribune stories, videos, images, and other works without permission.
These lawsuits are part of a growing trend in US courts, with dozens of cases involving copyright holders and AI companies already underway. The Times had previously sued OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing them of training their large language models on its articles without permission. However, some media companies have licensed their content to AI firms. For instance, OpenAI has struck multiple deals with media companies, including a reported $25 million-per-year agreement with Amazon that saw The Times join the partnership this year.
As AI technology advances and its applications become more widespread, copyright holders will likely continue to challenge the use of their content by these companies. With billions of dollars at stake, the battle over intellectual property rights in the digital age is set to remain a contentious issue for years to come.
In a move that highlights the ongoing battle between traditional media and AI companies, The New York Times and Chicago Tribune have filed separate lawsuits against Perplexity, accusing the AI firm of copyright infringement. Despite sending multiple cease-and-desist demands to Perplexity, the company allegedly continued to scrape content from The Times' website to train its AI models.
The New York Times claims that Perplexity infringed on its copyrights in two main areas. Firstly, by using scraped content to feed into its AI models and products like Claude chatbot and Comet browser. Secondly, by reproducing articles verbatim in the output of its generative AI products, damaging The Times' brand with false attributions of fabricated information.
Chicago Tribune has also filed a similar lawsuit against Perplexity, alleging that the company's genAI products generate identical or substantially similar outputs to its own content. According to the newspaper, Perplexity has unlawfully copied millions of copyrighted Chicago Tribune stories, videos, images, and other works without permission.
These lawsuits are part of a growing trend in US courts, with dozens of cases involving copyright holders and AI companies already underway. The Times had previously sued OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing them of training their large language models on its articles without permission. However, some media companies have licensed their content to AI firms. For instance, OpenAI has struck multiple deals with media companies, including a reported $25 million-per-year agreement with Amazon that saw The Times join the partnership this year.
As AI technology advances and its applications become more widespread, copyright holders will likely continue to challenge the use of their content by these companies. With billions of dollars at stake, the battle over intellectual property rights in the digital age is set to remain a contentious issue for years to come.
. I mean, I get that they need content to train their models, but don't they have better things to do than steal from others? 
Perplexity is basically a copyright thief, plain and simple. And now we're seeing all these lawsuits pop up, like what's next? 
Can't say I blame The Times or Chicago Tribune for fighting back though, gotta protect their work and brand. Maybe it's time for AI companies to start paying some royalties or licenses instead of just taking content? That'd be a step in the right direction, imo 
. Like, on one hand, you got these major newspapers accusing Perplexity of copyright infringement and trying to protect their content, but on the other hand, you got companies like OpenAI doing all sorts of deals with media outlets, using their articles to train their models... it's hard to know what's good or bad here 
.
But at the same time, I can see how AI companies need access to all that content to train their models. It's like, a digital maze and nobody knows where the rules are! 
... what do you think happens when AI companies are left unchecked?
! You know what's crazy? How some clothes can literally be from the 90s or 2000s, but still look so on-trend now? Like, my grandma has this old Chanel jacket that she bought in the '80s, and it's still got that luxury vibe going on 
. I swear, fashion is all about reusing and recycling, just like how AI companies are trying to reuse our content without permission 
I'm like totally shocked that The New York Times and Chicago Tribune are suing Perplexity 
. The fact that The New York Times and Chicago Tribune have had to sue Perplexity not once, not twice, but three times over copyright infringement is a huge red flag 
. And the more I think about it, the more I'm like "wait, if they're using scraped content to train their AI models, aren't they basically just copying and pasting?" 
. what's next? are we gonna have to pay royalties every time our favorite band plays a song that was written 10 years ago? because if so, i'm all for it 
. This lawsuit is gonna get interesting, especially with all these other media companies getting into AI deals 
... I mean, who doesn't love a good bowl of noodles? Anyway, back to this whole AI thing... don't get me wrong, I'm all for innovation, but what's the point of even having news if nobody can trust what they read online anymore? I swear, every time I click on one of those "breaking news" websites, it's just a bunch of recycled stuff from 2018 
...
The lawsuit thing is also kinda interesting... will Perplexity be able to argue that they were using the content for "fair use"? 
It's all pretty fascinating from an intellectual property perspective 
.
. It's like, if I write an article, shouldn't I get paid or credited for my work? 
. But hey, at least it'll keep me on my toes and make me think about how to protect my own digital assets 
. I mean, can you imagine scraping your entire database and using it as training data without permission? It's like someone walked into your home and started making copies of your artwork without asking 
. The Times is right to sue Perplexity over this - it's not just about the money (although that's a big part of it 
. These lawsuits might just be the spark that sets off a bigger conversation about copyright laws in the digital age 
.
. You can't just copy their design and call it yours – that's plagiarism! Perplexity needs to respect The Times' intellectual property rights and give credit where credit is due 
. The whole point of copyright laws is to protect creators' work and ensure they get fair compensation for their efforts 
.
... wait, that's not true. Copyrights are super important, right? And if someone's gonna use your stuff without permission, that's just shady business 
. Can we all just agree that copyright laws need a serious update in this digital age?