Apple is accused of using unauthorized content while developing artificial intelligence systems. This time, the company faced a class-action lawsuit filed by two scientists. The academics in question claimed that two books, the copyrights of which belonged to them, were used by Apple without any approval or permission. With this development, which resources technology giants prefer in artificial intelligence training began to be questioned again.
Professors Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen Macknik state that Apple obtains its own works through pirated content platforms known as “shadow libraries”. It is claimed that browser software that provides access to these platforms collects copyrighted publications from across the internet and transfers them to the systems. In addition, it is stated that training artificial intelligence models with such content poses serious problems both legally and ethically. In particular, unauthorized use of scientific studies causes great reaction in academic circles. Both professors find it unacceptable that their works are used for commercial purposes and without their knowledge.
Apple was recently sued with a similar claim.
Following this development, a similar case filed before came to the fore again. Just a few weeks ago, two different authors similarly accused Apple of copyright infringement. The use of published works in artificial intelligence models without the knowledge of the authors raises concerns about how these systems are trained. At this point, the legal status of the data used and the methods of obtaining it become critical. Because lack of transparency both undermines user trust and directly affects content producers. In this area where legal uncertainties continue, how the cases will be concluded is of great importance.
Although Apple has not yet made an official statement, the public is following this process closely. The company’s silence is interpreted in some circles as an attempt to avoid responsibility. This silence also causes other artificial intelligence systems trained with similar methods to come to the fore. In this context, it is discussed how companies select training data and what permission processes they go through. Especially the commercial use of academic and literary content raises ethical questions.
Apple is not alone in this process; Other tech companies are fighting similar allegations. For example, OpenAI is going through court action due to a copyright lawsuit filed by the New York Times. This case also calls into question the practices of artificial intelligence companies in the field of journalism and content production. Although such lawsuits do not directly hinder technology development, they do force companies to act more carefully. Neglecting basic issues such as copyright weakens trust in the sector. Therefore, future steps are being evaluated within the larger legal framework.
In addition to all these, the agreement reached with the Anthropic company on a similar issue in recent months is an example. Within the scope of this agreement, the company agreed to pay 1.5 billion dollars to 500 thousand writers. This settlement shows that copyright claims are not limited to court proceedings and that financial settlements are also possible. Such a development may cause Apple and similar companies to re-evaluate ways to reduce their legal risks. Regardless, such agreements are also considered by the public as a “secret acceptance of responsibility”. Therefore, companies are expected to develop clearer policies regarding content use.
Technology companies should not focus only on technical capacity when developing artificial intelligence. The source, accuracy and legal status of the content also play a determining role in the reliability of the systems. Users have the right to know what data the produced texts were created with. This transparency both protects the rights of content producers and ensures that the public is informed. Keeping the source of training data secret raises suspicions. First of all, knowledge-based systems need to be built on trust.
Despite this, the fact that developments in the field of artificial intelligence continue unabated makes it necessary for legal regulations to progress at the same pace. Existing laws may be insufficient, especially regarding the use of content by artificial intelligence systems. At this point, the need for a new regulation covering both content producers and technology companies is clearly evident. Of course, it is important that these regulations are designed in a way that does not hinder technology development but protects rights. Otherwise, current tensions may turn into more serious legal crises in the long run. It seems that the issue of content ownership will come to the fore more frequently in the coming period.
The plaintiff scientists think that the unauthorized use of their works is disrespectful to academic labor. According to them, the issue is not just copyright; but also the problem of devaluing scientific contribution. Integrating academic studies into commercial artificial intelligence systems raises serious ethical questions. This brings to the fore the need to re-evaluate the relationship between universities and technology companies. Despite everything, the place of resolution of these debates will continue to be the legal system. Legal decisions are likely to have lasting effects on the industry.