Opinion: Local newspapers' lawsuit against AI companies is a righteous battle against people stealing their work

Huge AI companies are stealing the work of others, especially news organizations, as they train their AI systems to make them more reliable -- and more valuable, Brier Dudley writes in an opinion piece for The Seattle Times. 

Dudley, who is editor of the Times' Free Press Initiative, writes: "It’s hard to keep track of everyone suing AI companies for stealing their work.Those gleaming AI platforms, the costliest computer systems ever built, are peddling more stolen goods than a seedy pawnshop."

But it's a June 24 lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft by a group of 35 publishers representing about 400 newspapers that has Dudley championing the need for journalists to stand up against these companies. This is just the latest lawsuit filed by news organizations against AI companies. The New York Times has spent nearly $30 million since 2023 on a copyright infringement lawsuit it filed. 

Dudley writes: "Even when AI companies began paying a few large papers and wire services, small papers were left out. Yet they are often providing their communities’ only local reporting, making their work valuable to companies purporting to be universal sources of current knowledge."

News organizations previously were hurt -- often unfairly -- by having their content taken by others in the digital world. Dudley hopes this time there will be a different result. 

He writes: "I’m glad to see these publishers fighting back. Perhaps they won’t get shafted like the previous generation was during the rise of search and social media."

AI giants ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and Grok all 'pilfer' stories from Canadian news outlets, a new audit finds

AI companies chose not to attribute their source materials.
(Photo by Markus Winkler, Unsplash)

ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and Grok all hijack Canadian news stories to use in their databases without adding legal attributions to stories pilfered from authors or arranging for copyright payment to publishers, according to an AI audit by Canadian researchers at McGill University, reports Brier Dudley, Free Press editor for The Seattle Times.

Professors Taylor Owen and Aengus Bridgman at McGill "tested four major AI models to see how much they knew about current news stories in Canada and how much credit they give to outlets that originally reported the stories," Dudley explains. The audit proved that tested AI models were "quite knowledgeable about current news stories. But in queries involving web searches, they provided no source attribution in 82% of the responses."

Owen and Bridgman write, "They have [taken and used content] without compensation, without attribution, and without any obligation to sustain the infrastructure they are drawing from. The result is a system that accelerates the economic decline of the journalism it relies on.”

The lack of attribution by AI companies is intentional. "When asked about a story from a specific outlet, the responses named the source 74% to 97% of the time," Dudley adds. "That indicates the companies are technically capable of naming sources but are making a 'design choice' not to, the audit states."

AI's pilfered stories let people get news without visiting the publisher's site or paying for a subscription. Dudley writes, "AI companies get the subscription and advertising revenue, instead of news sites that paid to report, edit and publish the stories."

Through the Online News Act, Canada now requires tech behemoths like Google and Meta that profit from using news sources to compensate publishers. With the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, the U.S. tried to pass protections similar to those adopted in Canada, but the bill faded in Congress in 2023. 

Dudley writes, "It’s past time for a new version of the JCPA, addressing how AI companies are changing the way people get information and preventing them from suffocating the local news industry. . . . To help get the ball rolling, I encourage academics in the U.S. to connect with Owen and Bridgman, who are willing to share their models, and produce similar audits here."

The 'right-to-repair' movement continues to gain traction. Its coalition runs a know-your-rights program open to all.

Six states have passed right-to-repair laws.

Whether it's fixing a broken cell phone or a car, many Americans have been fighting for their "right-to-repair" purchased products without industry restrictions, reports Iris Kim of NBC News. Historically, manufacturers of items such as computers, cars and tractors have used copyright law to prevent consumers from seeking repairs outside of the manufacturer's "licensed or company" representatives.

As U.S. consumers became more aware of right-to-repair benefits, including cheaper and quicker repairs, more states have passed laws to "protect consumers’ ability to repair or modify their products instead of having to go through the manufacturer," Kim explains. "As of March, right-to-repair bills had been introduced in all 50 states, and 20 state legislatures are currently debating such bills."

State laws differ on right-to-repair products and allowances. "Some narrowly target automobile manufacturers while others are broad enough to cover all consumer electronics," Kim writes. "Though bipartisan federal legislation for automobile repair stalled last year, it was reintroduced last month."

The U.S. right-to-repair movement has faced staunch corporate resistance because manufacturers have capitalized on repair revenue. Kit Walsh, a director at the nonprofit rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Kim, "Manufacturers will always try to figure out another means of restricting independent repair because it’s a very lucrative market for them."

The Right to Repair Coalition "runs a know-your-rights program where people can check what laws are enforced in their state," Kim reports. "If the manufacturer of a product is not in compliance with the law, consumers can fill out a form that sends a direct complaint to the state attorney general’s office."