CNN has initiated legal proceedings against the AI firm Perplexity, alleging that it has illegally copied and distributed the network's content. This decision comes after CNN attempted to negotiate a licensing agreement with Perplexity last year, but the two parties were unable to reach a consensus.
Perplexity is also facing lawsuits from other prominent publishers, such as The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, highlighting a growing trend of legal challenges against generative AI companies.
This lawsuit marks CNN's inaugural venture into AI copyright litigation, making it the first television network to take such action. It reflects a broader movement among news organizations to secure fair compensation in an era where AI tools and chatbots are significantly amplifying the dissemination of news to the public.
Major publishers are adopting a dual strategy, pursuing copyright infringement claims in some instances while negotiating content licensing agreements with AI companies in others. A spokesperson for CNN emphasized that the lawsuit asserts that Perplexity, which is valued in the tens of billions, should not benefit from the original content created by others without appropriate compensation. "The public depends on high-quality journalism, which is often costly and labor-intensive to produce. Publishers must be compensated for its use," the spokesperson stated.
In response, Jesse Dwyer, Perplexity's chief communications officer, remarked that factual information itself cannot be copyrighted. The case has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and notes that CNN had previously tried to negotiate a content agreement but failed to finalize terms.
The lawsuit underscores that Perplexity was aware it lacked permission to access CNN's content, as well as its trademarks and service marks, both during and after their negotiations. Despite the legal action, CNN underlined its openness to the possibilities AI presents, mentioning various commercial partnerships and ongoing discussions with reputable industry participants, including a reported deal with Meta last December.
CNN reiterated its preference for "reasonable licensing arrangements," but warned that without cooperation from companies like Perplexity, legal consequences in the form of damages could ensue. The network clearly stated, "There is no free option."
Notably, other organizations such as News Corp, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun have also taken legal steps against Perplexity in the past couple of years. In contrast, companies like Gannett, TIME, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel have successfully established deals with the company during the same timeframe.
Earlier this year, in its defense against cases brought by The Times and the Tribune, Perplexity argued that attempts to restrict this innovative technology would fail, citing fundamental principles of intellectual property law that have historically allowed technologies like theirs to thrive.
