New York Times sues AI startup for 'illegal' copying of millions of articles

New York Times Takes Tech Giants to Task Over AI Copyright Infringement

In a latest salvo in the ongoing battle between publishers and tech companies, the New York Times has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity AI, alleging that the startup has illegally copied millions of articles without permission. The newspaper claims that Perplexity's business model relies on scraping and copying content from paywalled sources to power its generative AI products.

The Times says that Perplexity's AI tools create fabricated content, or "hallucinations", which it then displays alongside the newspaper's registered trademarks. This move is seen as a blatant attempt by the startup to pass off its generated content as original, thereby violating the New York Times' trademarks under the Lanham Act.

The suit comes amidst a growing chorus of complaints from other publishers who have accused Perplexity of plagiarizing their work and using copyrighted material without authorization. Cloudflare, for instance, had accused Perplexity earlier this year of hiding its web-crawling activities and scraping websites without permission – a serious accusation with potential copyright implications.

Perplexity has been accused by multiple publications, including Forbes, Wired, the Chicago Tribune, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, and even social media company Reddit. The startup's business model appears to rely on exploiting public domain or under-resourced sources, raising concerns about intellectual property rights and fairness.

The lawsuit marks a significant escalation in the cat-and-mouse game between tech giants and publishers over AI-generated content. As Perplexity continues to aggressively build market share in the hyper-competitive AI tools market, it remains to be seen how the legal landscape will unfold in favor of these parties. With Perplexity's valuation now at $20bn following a recent funding round, it's clear that the stakes are high and the attention from tech giants is focused on putting an end to this practice once and for all.

I'm genuinely concerned about the implications of AI-generated content . It feels like we're witnessing a Wild West scenario where tech companies are exploring uncharted territory, with intellectual property rights often taking a backseat. The fact that Perplexity's valuation has skyrocketed to $20bn despite facing accusations from multiple publications raises questions about accountability and regulatory oversight.

The cat-and-mouse game between tech giants and publishers is escalating rapidly , but I'm not convinced we're having an informed conversation about the ethics of AI-generated content. We need to acknowledge that there are real-world consequences for exploiting public domain or under-resourced sources – creators are losing revenue, and consumers might be getting low-quality content. It's time for policymakers to step in and establish clear guidelines for AI development and deployment .

Ultimately, this lawsuit against Perplexity is a crucial moment of reckoning . Will the market dictate that these practices continue unchecked, or will we see some semblance of accountability? The answer will be telling about our values as a society .

This is getting crazy lol, AI copyright infringement is becoming a major thing. I mean Perplexity has been accused by so many big names and now they're going toe-to-toe with the New York Times. This is gonna be interesting to watch how it plays out . I've seen some of those AI generated articles online and I have to say, they can sound pretty convincing but at the end of the day its still someone elses work right? . Imo the real winners here are the lawyers and the investors who just want to see this whole thing go down in flames

I think its pretty sus how these big tech companies are just copying everyone elses work without permission. Like, yeah sure they say they're generating it themselves but we all know that's just not true . They're just trying to cut corners and make a quick buck off our intellectual property. And whats worse is that alot of the stuff is just public domain anyway so its even more lowkey theft . The fact that they can just scrape websites and web-crawl without permission is straight up shady . Its time for these companies to take responsibility for their actions and start respecting the work of creators .

I was just thinking about how much I love trying out new recipes in the kitchen... have you tried making those Korean-style pancakes? They're literally so easy to make and always a hit with my family! Anyway, back to AI copyright infringement - it's crazy that these tech giants are not taking responsibility for their actions. Like, if they're using someone else's content without permission, aren't they also profiting from it? It's just not right...

I'm low-key worried about how AI companies like Perplexity are disrupting the way we consume info . It sounds crazy, but think about it – these tools can generate content that's basically identical to what's already out there, without any credit or compensation to the original creators. And if they're not careful, it could lead to a Wild West of intellectual property lawlessness . On the other hand, I also get why publishers are pushing back hard against Perplexity and its ilk – it's a new frontier and we need to figure out how to protect our rights in this space . Either way, I think it's a good thing that the New York Times is taking a stand on this issue .

AI copyright infringement is getting out of hand . Tech giants gotta start respecting creators' work and pay up for stolen content . Can't just scrape & copy others' stuff without permission, no matter how much cash you make .

i gotta say, if i was in perplexity's shoes, id be like "what's the big deal?" they're just using public domain stuff or old news articles that nobody cares about anymore... it's not like they're stealing someones' personal life story or something but at the same time, i get why the NY times is upset. they feel like their work is being used without permission and it's a big part of their business model

i think the real question here is how far do you draw the line? can you use some old news article from 2018 just because it's public domain? or does that mean anyone can just take somethin' from another site and pass it off as original?

I'm low-key worried about AI-generated content ... like what happens when these big players copy millions of articles without permission? It's not just about Perplexity, it's a whole ecosystem problem . I mean, if they're gonna use our work to power their fancy AI tools, shouldn't we get some kind of credit or pay for it somehow? The fact that these giants are making millions off this stuff and getting away with it is just not cool . Can we really rely on the law to step in and protect creators' rights?

I remember when Wikipedia was first created back in 2001, and how it became this amazing resource for people to access information for free... Nowadays it's like Perplexity AI is just taking the best parts of what we had back then and repackaging them into these fancy generative AI tools. I'm worried that if they're getting away with copying content without permission, we'll lose the integrity of our online publications... My grandma used to love reading The New York Times on Sunday mornings before the internet was even a thing . It's crazy to think about how much technology has changed everything, including how we consume and create information .

AI COPYRIGHT ISSUES ARE GETTING CRAZY!!! PERPLEXITY AI SEEMS TO BE A REAL CANDIDATE FOR SUIT, THEY'RE JUST TOO AGGRESSIVE WITH THEIR WEB-CRAWLING AND SCRAPING WITHOUT PERMISSION IT'S LIKE THEY THINK THEY CAN JUST TAKE ANYTHING AND TURN IT INTO GOLD, COMPLETELY IGGORING COPYRIGHT LAWS. NEWS PUBLISHERS ARE FIGHTING BACK HARD, FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES TO CLOUDFLARE, EVERYBODY'S TAKING A STAND AGAINST THESE TECH GIANTS

OMG , can you believe this?! Like, I'm loving the idea of taking down Perplexity AI and holding them accountable for their alleged copyright infringement . As a huge fan of the NY Times, it's amazing that they're standing up for their intellectual property rights .

But at the same time, I'm kinda worried about the bigger picture here . Like, what happens when AI-generated content becomes the norm? Is it still fair game to use public domain or under-resourced sources without permission? And how do we even measure originality in a world where AI can generate content that's basically indistinguishable from human-created work?

It's like, I'm all for innovation and progress, but we need to make sure that our tech giants aren't just coasting on other people's work without giving them the credit or compensation they deserve . Can't we find a way to balance creativity with fairness and respect for creators' rights?

I'm like totally shook about this one ! If Perplexity is indeed copying millions of articles without permission, that's just not cool. I mean, they're basically stealing people's work and passing it off as their own. And what really gets my goat is that they're using this tech to create fake content that sounds like the real deal – it's like they're trying to pull a fast one on everyone . The fact that multiple publications have come forward with similar complaints just confirms that something fishy is going on. We need some serious accountability here and I hope the New York Times lawsuit brings Perplexity to its knees . It's time for these tech giants to step up their game and respect the intellectual property rights of others .

I'm so down for The New York Times taking on Perplexity AI like this ! As much as I love the idea of AI-generated content, it's crazy that they're copying millions of articles without permission . I mean, can you imagine if someone did that with your blog posts or YouTube videos? It's just not right.

At the same time, I gotta say that Perplexity's business model does sound a bit sketchy . They're basically scraping and copying content from public domain or under-resourced sources to power their AI tools. That raises some serious questions about intellectual property rights and fairness .

I'm curious to see how this lawsuit plays out in court . It's clear that the stakes are high, especially with Perplexity's valuation at $20bn . I just hope they take responsibility for their actions and start being more transparent about what they're doing . Maybe we can find a way to create AI-generated content that's both awesome and respectful of other people's work . Fingers crossed!

AI-generated content = copyright infringement . Tech giants can't just scrape and copy forever . News outlets have a right to protect their work . Can't have startups making money off other people's labor .

I'm not surprised they're going after Perplexity AI . It's like they think they can just copy-paste their way to success without anyone noticing . The thing is, if they're really generating that content from scratch, why are there so many similar articles popping up everywhere? It's probably because they're using some of the same "public domain" sources as everyone else . And honestly, who doesn't love a good AI-generated article with zero original thought?

Ugh, can't believe these tech giants think they're above the law . I mean, I get it, AI-generated content is supposed to be super convenient, but come on! Perplexity thinks it's some kind of genius by just copying and pasting stuff without permission? That's just not cool. The Times was right to take them down a peg – those trademarks aren't up for grabs just because you've got fancy algorithms .

And don't even get me started on the whole "hallucinations" thing . Like, what even is that supposed to mean? It sounds like some dodgy science-y speak . I'm just glad someone's finally standing up for the content creators – it's about time . Now, let's see if Perplexity's got the cash and brains to take on the big dogs .

u r telling me its not fair when some startup starts copying ur work 4 free? Perplexity AI needs 2 take responsibility 4 their actions, scrapin & copin content without permission is just plain lazy . Its like they think they can just ride on other ppl's creativity 4 their own gain . The fact that theyre doin this 4 profit makes it even worse . The New York Times needs 2 be commended 4 takin a stand against dis blatant copyright infringement .

I'm low-key livid about this - how can AI companies just scrape & copy content without permission? It's like they think their fancy algorithms make them above the law . The fact that Perplexity is making bank off this (20bn valuation, yikes!) shows it's a clear case of profiting from others' work without giving credit or paying royalties . This is a big deal for publishers who've worked hard to create valuable content... we need stronger laws to protect IP rights!

omg what a huge deal! i'm not surprised tho perplexity has been getting roasted left and right online. like who does that? copy millions of articles without permission? no thanks. the new york times is basically saying 'hey perplexity, you can't just take our work and pass it off as your own'. and honestly i think they're right. AI-generated content might be convenient but it's not fair to publishers like them who actually put in the hard work to create that content.

i'm also kinda curious about how this is gonna play out in court. are we gonna see some major changes in how companies approach AI and copyright law? i think it's time for those tech giants to start thinking about the bigger picture and how their business models affect others.