AI Lawsuits Focus Claims on Training of Bots

The development of artificial intelligence chatbots has ushered in a tidal wave of legal woes (and concerns) ranging from plagiarism in college classrooms to false legal citations and other issues arising out of the use of AI in briefing submitted to courts. Now, those legal woes include numerous lawsuits filed in relatively quick succession – at least three in California and one in New York – a number of them involving high profile writers and authors.

Current AI Lawsuits

In the first suit, filed in June of this year, writers Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad brought claims against OpenAI in San Francisco federal court maintaining that OpenAI mined data copied from their books without permission, infringing the authors’ copyrights.  In response, OpenAI claimed “fair use” of the copyrighted content.

In July, again in California, comedian Sarah Silverman and two writers, Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey, brought a proposed class-action lawsuit against Meta Platforms and OpenAI alleging both defendants used the authors’ copyrighted content (without permission) to train their chat bots (Meta AI and ChatGPT, respectively) to respond to human prompts. 

Two more lawsuits followed soon after in September. Writer Michael Chabon, author of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay joined forces with fellow writers David Henry Hwang, Rachel Louis Snyder, and Ayelet Waldman asserting similar claims against OpenAI, once again in California federal court.  And in a separate suit filed alongside the Authors Guild in the Southern District of New York, high profile authors John Grisham, George A. A. Martin, Jodi Picoult, Jonathan Franzer, Elin Hilderbrand and twelve other writers brought similar claims against OpenAI.  According to that complaint, having used the authors’ copyrighted content to train ChatGPT, OpenAI’s chatbot can now produce “derivative works” that can copy and summarize the authors’ books without permission, potentially harming the market for the authors’ work.  As noted by these authors, “[a]t the heart of [OpenAI’s ChatGPT] algorithms is systemic theft on a massive scale.” 

AI Lawsuits Focus on Training of Bots

AI programs (or chat bots) such as ChatGPT respond to user prompts by application of an algorithm that selects words based on “training” the chat bots received from scanning billions of pieces of text across the internet. The primary argument in each of these lawsuits involved the alleged illegal use of copyrighted content to train the AI programs, an act each set of plaintiffs maintains is an unauthorized reproduction of the copyrighted works in violation of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq.). Thus, the plaintiffs allege, OpenAI (and others creating and “training” chat bots) scan and make use of the copyrighted material, which creates or fosters written work that publishers would otherwise pay authors to generate.

In response, Open AI, Meta Platforms and others maintain their use does not violate the provisions of the Copyright Act but constitutes “fair use” in an effort to create wholly separate original content.

It’s clear that OpenAI and others continue to stack legal woes on top of legal woes as the use of AI grows. What remains unclear is exactly what types of information AI companies are utilizing—and how—in the “training” of chat bots, and whether the protections afforded under the Copyright Act prohibit such use. How the courts react to these claims could significantly alter the industry—and the law. Decisions in favor of the authors could ultimately require OpenAI and others to obtain prior permission and paid licensing before using copyrighted content. On the other hand, decisions in favor of the AI companies could open all online content to AI developers worldwide, without consequence. Either way, these cases are positioned to alter the legal landscape and the application of existing copyright law to recent technological advances.

For more information about AI lawsuits, see our Technology & Data Law Services and Industry Focused Legal Solutions pages.

This article has been provided for informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice. Please consult your attorneys in connection with any fact-specific situation under federal law and the applicable state or local laws that may impose additional obligations on you and your company. © 2023 Klemchuk PLLC