What to know

  • Ziff Davis, owner of IGN, CNET, and PCMag, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI for copyright infringement.
  • The lawsuit claims OpenAI used Ziff Davis content to train its AI models without permission.
  • Ziff Davis is seeking damages of at least hundreds of millions of dollars.
  • OpenAI argues its use of content is protected under fair use laws.

Ziff Davis, the company behind well-known technology and gaming sites like IGN, CNET, and PCMag, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI. The suit alleges that OpenAI used content from Ziff Davis publications to train its artificial intelligence models, including ChatGPT, without obtaining permission or a license.

The lawsuit was filed in Delaware, where OpenAI is registered. Ziff Davis claims that OpenAI "intentionally and relentlessly reproduced exact copies and created derivatives of Ziff Davis works." According to the complaint, OpenAI used this content knowing it would violate Ziff Davis’s intellectual property rights and the law. The publisher argues that this practice infringes on its copyrights and dilutes its trademarks.

Ziff Davis is seeking damages of at least hundreds of millions of dollars. The company says it had previously sent letters to OpenAI, warning the tech company about copyright infringement, but OpenAI did not change its practices or negotiate a license agreement.

OpenAI responded by stating that its use of copyrighted material is protected by fair use laws. A spokesperson said that ChatGPT helps enhance human creativity and supports scientific and medical research. OpenAI also noted that its technology enables millions of people to improve their daily lives.

This lawsuit is part of a broader trend, as other publishers and writers have also taken legal action against OpenAI for similar reasons. Some companies have chosen to license their content to OpenAI instead of pursuing legal action. For example, Future Publishing made a deal to allow its content to be used by ChatGPT, with attribution and links to original articles.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how AI companies use online content to train their models and how publishers protect their intellectual property in the digital age.

Via: TheVerge