By 
Google has recently found itself entangled in a surge of legal battles as the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on copyright and privacy rights comes into focus.
Amid this ongoing debate, Google has not only defended its AI training practices but has also committed to protecting users of its generative AI products from allegations of copyright infringement.
However, it’s essential to note that Google’s protective coverage applies to only seven specified products with generative AI features, conspicuously excluding Google’s Bard search tool. This strategic decision, while offering some relief, raises critical questions about accountability, safeguarding creative rights, and the evolving AI landscape.
Furthermore, this initiative is perceived as more than a mere reactive move by Google; it appears to be a well-thought-out strategy to support the flourishing AI ecosystem.
AI’s Legal Quandary
The recent surge in generative AI has reignited the age-old copyright debate with a modern twist. The core of the issue centers around whether the data used for training AI models and the output they generate violate intellectual property (IP) rights held by private entities.
In the case against Google, the accusations revolve around this very matter. If proven, it could not only result in significant financial repercussions for Google but also set a precedent that might hinder the growth of generative AI as a whole.
Google’s legal strategy, designed to instill confidence among its users, focuses on two primary pillars: indemnification of its training data and the output it generates. Google has pledged to bear legal responsibility if the data used to develop its AI models faces IP infringement allegations.
Moreover, Google is aiming to protect users from claims that the text, images, or other content generated by its AI services infringe upon others’ personal data. This safeguard covers various services, including Google Docs, Slides, and Cloud Vertex AI.
Google contends that using publicly available information for AI system training does not equate to theft, privacy invasion, or copyright infringement. However, this assertion is under scrutiny due to multiple lawsuits accusing Google of misusing personal and copyrighted information to train its AI models. One proposed class-action lawsuit even alleges that Google has built its entire AI prowess on secretly acquired data from millions of internet users.
Hence, this legal battle transcends the clash between Google and the aggrieved parties; it raises a broader ideological question: “Who truly owns internet data, and to what extent can it be used to train AI models, especially when these models produce commercially valuable outputs?”
The interplay between generative AI and intellectual property rights protection is a rapidly evolving landscape. Nonfungible token artist Amitra Sethi emphasized the importance of Google’s recent announcement but also urged nuanced understanding of its policy.
Sethi sees Google’s policy as a shield against unintentional infringement. However, it may not cover all scenarios, particularly in cases of intentional plagiarism through AI. Artists, according to Sethi, need to proactively secure their creative output, which she highlighted by recently copyrighting her unique art genre, “SoundBYTE.”
In response to such developments, the global artist community is coming together to advocate for clearer laws and regulations governing AI-generated content.
Furthermore, tools like Glaze and Nightshade have emerged to protect artists’ creations. Glaze subtly alters artwork to feed incorrect data to AI art generators, while Nightshade enables artists to add invisible changes to their pieces to “poison” data for AI scrapers.
The ongoing narrative extends beyond Google and its product suite. Tech giants like Microsoft and Adobe have also taken measures to shield their users from similar copyright claims.
Microsoft, for instance, has firmly defended the legality of its generative AI tool, Copilot, stressing that it aids developers in writing code more efficiently.
Adobe has embedded guidelines in its AI tools to prevent users from inadvertently becoming entangled in copyright disputes and is offering AI services bundled with legal safeguards against external infringements.
The forthcoming legal cases related to AI will undoubtedly shape not only legal frameworks but also the ethical foundations on which future AI systems will operate.
Tomi Fyrqvist, co-founder and chief financial officer of decentralized social app Phaver, anticipates more lawsuits of this nature in the years ahead. While some may be opportunistic, others could be legitimate, reinforcing the need for clear regulations in the AI realm.
Comments