AI search startup Perplexity has issued a strong response to the copyright infringement lawsuit filed against it by News Corp. The lawsuit accuses Perplexity of large-scale copyright violations involving content from News Corp’s publications, such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. In a recent blog post, Perplexity has rejected these allegations, taking an adversarial stance towards media companies. It argues that institutions like News Corp would rather see the suppression of advanced technologies like generative AI than see them thrive. The startup contends that media companies wish to maintain control over what it considers publicly reported facts, indicating an underlying tension between traditional media and emerging AI technologies.
Perplexity’s blog post, which totaled approximately 600 words, was filled with bold statements regarding the motivations behind media companies’ legal actions against generative AI tools. The startup noted that there are now around three dozen lawsuits targeting such technologies. However, rather than providing substantial evidence for its claims, Perplexity dismissed the need for detailed discussions on the issues at hand, suggesting that the legal context is not suitable for a deep dive into the matter. This lack of factual backing raised questions about the robustness of Perplexity’s arguments against News Corp’s claims.
Interestingly, the blog post did not address the core allegation that Perplexity copies content from media publishers and then competes with these publishers for audience attention. Instead, Perplexity positioned itself as a defender of AI innovation, suggesting that news organizations seek to inhibit the development of such tools. This viewpoint appears contradictory to the established collaborations between multiple media companies and AI firms like OpenAI. Notably, even News Corp has entered into long-term partnerships with AI-related entities to integrate journalism into tools like ChatGPT. Furthermore, Perplexity itself has revenue-sharing agreements with reputable publishers such as Time and Fortune, suggesting that publishers are not opposed to AI altogether but rather dissatisfied with Perplexity’s business approach.
While Perplexity made some direct rebuttals regarding specific allegations, such as accusations of fully regurgitating articles or being unresponsive to outreach from News Corp, many of its claims leaned toward speculation. The startup questioned the relevance of “salacious” examples brought forth by News Corp and expressed skepticism about their use in the trial. This speculation aspect distracts from the pressing issues surrounding copyright in the context of AI content generation and raises concerns about how seriously Perplexity is taking the lawsuit.
The blog post, characterized by a tone of indignation rather than elucidation, leaves many critical questions unanswered. The absence of detailed, fact-based arguments indicates that Perplexity may need to prepare for a rigorous legal battle to provide clarity and defense in court. As one of the most well-known AI search startups, how Perplexity engages with the complexities of intellectual property rights will likely have significant implications both for itself and the wider industry. The evolving landscape of AI and copyright law is under intense scrutiny, and Perplexity’s approach could set important precedents.
As the case proceeds, both Perplexity and News Corp, as key players in the intersection of traditional journalism and modern technology, must confront the broader implications of their conflict. The outcome of this legal dispute may not only impact Perplexity’s trajectory but could also establish critical guidelines for how AI startups operate amid existing intellectual property laws. In a rapidly changing technological landscape, the dynamics between media corporations and AI startups will play a pivotal role in shaping the future of content generation, distribution, and copyright norms. The legal strategies each party employs may reveal layers of complexity pertaining to ownership of information and the ethical boundaries of AI utilization in various industries.
