NYT Issues Cease-and-Desist Letter to Perplexity AI

NYT Issues Cease-and-Desist Letter to Perplexity AI Over Alleged Unauthorized Content Use

The New York Times (NYT) has issued a cease-and-desist letter to Perplexity AI, accusing the AI-powered search startup of using its content without permission. This move marks the second time the NYT has confronted a company for allegedly misappropriating its material.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

According to reports, the Times claims Perplexity is accessing and utilizing its content to generate summaries and other outputs, actions it argues infringe on copyright laws. The startup now has two weeks to respond to the accusations.

A Growing Pattern of Tensions

Perplexity AI is not the only publisher-facing scrutiny. In June, Forbes threatened legal action against the company, alleging “willful infringement” by using its text and images. In response, Perplexity launched the Perplexity Publishers’ Program, a revenue-sharing initiative that collaborates with publishers like Time, Fortune, and The Texas Tribune.

Meanwhile, the NYT remains entangled in a separate lawsuit with OpenAI and its partner Microsoft over alleged misuse of its content.

A Strategic Legal Approach

The NYT’s decision to issue a cease-and-desist letter instead of pursuing an immediate lawsuit signals a calculated move.

“Cease-and-desist approaches are less confrontational, less expensive, and faster,” said Sarah Kreps, a professor at Cornell University. This method also opens the door for negotiation, a pragmatic step given the uncharted legal terrain surrounding generative AI and copyright law.

Michael Bennett, a responsible AI expert from Northeastern University, echoed this view, suggesting that the cease-and-desist approach positions the Times to protect its intellectual property while maintaining leverage in ongoing legal battles.

If the NYT wins its case against OpenAI, Bennett added, it could compel companies like Perplexity to enter financial agreements for content use. However, if the case doesn’t favor the NYT, the publisher risks losing leverage.

The letter also serves as a warning to other AI vendors, signaling the NYT’s determination to safeguard its intellectual property.

Perplexity’s Defense: Facts vs. Expression

Perplexity AI has countered the NYT’s claims by asserting that its methods adhere to copyright laws.

“We aren’t scraping data for building foundation models but rather indexing web pages and surfacing factual content as citations,” the company stated. It emphasized that facts themselves cannot be copyrighted, drawing parallels to how search engines like Google operate.

Kreps noted that Perplexity’s approach aligns closely with other AI platforms, which typically index pages to provide factual answers while citing sources.

“If Perplexity is culpable, then the entire AI industry could be held accountable,” she said, contrasting Perplexity’s citation-based model with platforms like ChatGPT, which often lack transparency about data sources.

The Crux of the Copyright Argument

The NYT’s cease-and-desist letter centers on the distinction between facts and the creative expression of facts. While raw facts are not protected under copyright, the NYT claims that its specific interpretation and presentation of those facts are.

Vincent Allen, an intellectual property attorney, explained that if Perplexity is scraping data and summarizing articles, it may involve making unauthorized copies of copyrighted content, strengthening the NYT’s claims.

“This is a big deal for content providers,” Allen said, “as they want to ensure they’re compensated for their work.”

Implications for the AI Industry

The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for how AI platforms handle content generated by publishers. If Perplexity’s practices are deemed infringing, it could reshape the operational models of similar AI vendors.

At the heart of the debate is the balance between fostering innovation in AI and protecting intellectual property, a challenge that will likely shape the future of generative AI and its relationship with content creators.