NYT Sues Perplexity Over ‘Verbatim’ Copying of Articles
▼ Summary
– The New York Times is suing the AI startup Perplexity for allegedly copying and profiting from its copyrighted content.
– The lawsuit claims Perplexity’s responses substitute for the Times’s own website and newspaper, harming its revenue.
– The Times is seeking financial damages and a permanent injunction to stop the alleged infringement.
– Perplexity’s spokesperson framed the lawsuit as part of a historical pattern of publishers suing new technologies.
– The article notes the Times previously sued OpenAI and later made a content deal with Amazon.
The legal landscape for artificial intelligence companies faces another significant challenge as The New York Times has filed a lawsuit against the AI startup Perplexity. The complaint alleges that Perplexity’s “answer engine” is generating and monetizing responses that are either verbatim copies or substantially similar to the newspaper’s copyrighted articles. This action follows the Times’ earlier lawsuit against OpenAI and represents a growing conflict between established media organizations and AI firms over the use of published content.
The core of the legal argument centers on economic harm. The lawsuit contends that by reproducing protected material, Perplexity creates a substitute for the original work. This practice, the Times claims, directly undermines its business by removing the incentive for users to visit its website, subscribe to its newspaper, or engage with its advertising. The publication asserts this leads to a misappropriation of critical revenue streams, including subscriptions, advertising, licensing, and affiliate income that rightfully belongs to the Times.
In response to the allegations, the media giant is pursuing both financial damages and a permanent injunction from the court. Such an order would legally prohibit Perplexity from continuing the allegedly infringing activities. This legal strategy highlights the newspaper’s intent to set a firm precedent regarding how AI models can utilize journalistic content.
A spokesperson for Perplexity framed the lawsuit as part of a historical pattern. “Publishers have been suing new tech companies for a hundred years, starting with radio, TV, the internet, social media and now AI,” said Jesse Dwyer in a statement. The comment suggests a belief that such legal challenges are an inevitable but ultimately surmountable reaction to technological progress, implying that previous innovations prevailed despite similar opposition.
This case adds to a series of high-profile legal confrontations questioning the boundaries of fair use in the age of generative AI. The outcome could have profound implications for how AI companies train their models and deliver information to the public, potentially requiring new frameworks for compensation and attribution. As these disputes move through the courts, they will likely shape the future relationship between content creators and the algorithms that summarize and disseminate their work.
(Source: The Verge)
