New York Times Reporter Sues Google, OpenAI, Meta over AI training

A New York Times reporter has filed a lawsuit against several major artificial intelligence companies including Google, OpenAI and Meta over AI training. The case focuses on how AI systems are trained and whether copyrighted material is being used legally. It has drawn attention from journalists, authors, and the tech industry worldwide.

The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in California. It was led by John Carreyrou, an investigative reporter known for exposing fraud at the Theranos startup. He is also the author of the bestselling book Bad Blood, which detailed the scandal and its impact.

New York Times reporter sues Google, OpenAI, Meta over AI training

Carreyrou joined the lawsuit with five other writers. Together, they accused Google, OpenAI, Meta Platforms, Anthropic, xAI, and Perplexity of using their books without permission. The complaint claims the companies copied copyrighted works and used them to train large language models that power AI chatbots.

According to the writers, their work was taken without consent or payment. They argue that AI systems depend heavily on books and long-form writing to learn language. The authors believe this makes their work valuable and deserving of protection under copyright law.

The case is part of a growing legal battle between creators and technology companies. Many authors and artists have raised similar concerns. AI firms often respond by citing fair use, but courts are still deciding how copyright law applies to artificial intelligence.

Unlike many other cases, this lawsuit was not filed as a class action. The writers say class actions often benefit large corporations more than individuals. They argue that grouping claims together can reduce compensation and weaken individual rights.

See Also: OpenAI Launches ChatGPT App Store for Tools and Services

The lawsuit also criticizes earlier copyright settlements in the AI industry. It points to a recent agreement involving Anthropic, which paid $1.5 billion to resolve similar claims. The writers argue that most authors in that settlement received far less than the maximum allowed by law.

Under U.S. copyright rules, damages can reach up to $150,000 per infringed work. The writers say authors rarely receive amounts close to that limit. They believe this discourages strong enforcement of copyright protections.

So far, none of the companies named in the lawsuit has commented publicly. The case is still in its early stages. Its outcome could influence future AI development and how creative work is protected in the digital age.