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.
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.
. 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.
, 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 
.
. 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 
.
. Imo the real winners here are the lawyers and the investors who just want to see this whole thing go down in flames 
. 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... 
. 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 
.
.
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 
. 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? 
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 
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 
. As a huge fan of the NY Times, it's amazing that they're standing up for their intellectual property rights 
.
. 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 
It's just not right.
. It's clear that the stakes are high, especially with Perplexity's valuation at $20bn 
. Maybe we can find a way to create AI-generated content that's both awesome and respectful of other people's work 
. Fingers crossed!
. News outlets have a right to protect their work 
. 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 
. Like, what even is that supposed to mean? It sounds like some dodgy science-y speak 
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 
.
- how can AI companies just scrape & copy content without permission? It's like they think their fancy algorithms make them above the law 
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.