Click here to start your claim against Microsoft or Google - Protect your data from AI Training
Menu
Their technological impact has been laid bare for the planet to see. And now, after transforming the technological landscape, Microsoft are facing a class action lawsuit for copyright violations.
They’re taking flak from all angles, with developers, news outlets, coders, publishers, game companies, image creators and entertainers all lining up to sue them and their partner and associate companies, claiming that the tech giant has violated copyright laws.
The allegation is that, in the development of an artificial intelligence (AI) system – also known in some circles as a large language model (LLM) – they used code and content without any attribution, and didn’t adhere to open-source licenses.
The developers are believed to be training the AI assistant using open-source software which, in turn, means that intellectual property rights have been violated.
A recent hearing in California led to most of the developers’ claims being dismissed – a significant result for AI and its future.
But the high-stakes, billion-dollar case – ultimately challenging the legality of the AI chatbot’s training and output – will continue for the foreseeable future.
Microsoft aren’t the only big hitters facing legal action over AI development.
In the summer of 2023, Google and its parent company Alphabet were hit with a class-action lawsuit that alleged they scraped millions of product users’ data which was used in the training and development of their AI assistant and LLM.
Clarkson Law Firm alleged that Google violated data collection laws when collecting public information for the training of its AI chatbot, Bard (now rebranded as Gemini). They argued that Google should be obtaining permission and paying those whose data is used. The lawsuit also suggested that Google sourced data from social media accounts, creative works, photographs, personal blogs and copyrighted literature. Google denied a further claim that they used data from its email service, Gmail, to train its LLMs.
It’s highly likely you’ve been blissfully unaware that your data may have been scraped from any number of sources by Microsoft or Google.
So many of us are computer literate these days, are highly familiar with both companies and regularly use their products. If you have a LinkedIn account, you use Xbox Game Pass, OneDrive or Microsoft Office products, or if you have registered a YouTube account or use any of Google’s wide range or products for personal or business use, then you may have a case for claiming compensation.
We are not discouraged by the size of the firms we are taking on – we will fight your case, with no financial risk to you. Providing our clients are honest and cooperative with our legal teams, they will only pay for our services in the event of us winning their claim for them. Our no-win no-fee guarantee will apply to you and your claim, regardless of the size of the opponent.
Tech behemoths and media giants have faced a plethora of copyright-related legal claims in years gone by. Here are 10 prominent times that tech firms’ methods were challenged with legal action.
Google Books lawsuit: Let’s go back 20 years, to when Google had ambitions to digitise millions of print-edition books in the public domain. While the scheme to make all of the world’s books available online had its merits, Google failed to win over authors and publishers. Google scanned books without explicit permission from copyright owners, which led to debate over the potential benefits to users versus protection for copyright owners, authors and publishers.
A long-running legal battle ensued. On one side the authors, represented by the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild, claimed copyright infringement and revenue loss. Google, meanwhile, argued that their idealistic scanning of literature and displaying snippets of books that were already in the public domain was transformative and constituted fair use.
After a decade-long saga the courts ruled in Google’s favour and an appeal by the Authors Guild was rejected by the US Court of Appeals. In 2016 the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and Google was allowed to continue its work.
The case set precedents for fair use in wide-ranging use of copyrighted content, particularly in machine learning.
Viacom sue YouTube: In 2007, one of the planet’s largest media giants, Viacom, alleged that YouTube was liable for widespread duplication of copyrighted material and sued them and their parent company, Google, for a billion dollars.
The claim was that YouTube knowingly and willingly allowed users to upload thousands of videos, which Viacom owned, without permission. An estimated 160,000 unauthorised clips for Viacom programming appeared on the site.
A key to this case was the interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Under the act, online platforms were protected from copyright infringement for user-generated content, the only proviso being that they had to respond to takedown notices from copyright holders.
YouTube qualified for the DMCA’s ‘safe harbour’ provisions, that protect websites passively hosting users’ content. The argument is that YouTube, and other such hosting sites, allow users to post their content but are little more than middlemen and, as such, should be immune from infringement.
The landmark battle in the USA was ultimately settled out of court in 2013, with both parties agreeing to collaborate on content protection, and help to clarify hosting platforms’ responsibilities.
Getty Images take on Google: Closer to home, visual media giant Getty Images sued Google, accusing them of scraping hi-res images from its site. The complaint was filed in London in 2016 and was based on Google’s ‘image search’ function promoting piracy and was harmful to their business model.
Getty argued that the image search facility undermined their licensing business, as users could view images directly without the need to visit their own, source website. This practice, they claimed, reduced traffic to its website and decreased users’ need to license images properly.
The case was settled pre-trial in 2018, with the two parties forming a long-term global licensing partnership. As part of the deal, Google agreed to make changes to its image search features – that would improve attribution of images to Getty – while Getty agreed to license its content to Google.
Amazon and Google butt heads over checkout tech: Two household names locked horns in 2004, in the wake of Google launching its new checkout service, which was seen as a direct competitor to Amazon’s ‘1-Click’ ordering system, which had been patented in 1999. Amazon claimed their innovative, streamlined system – which was considered revolutionary at the time – had been infringed upon by Google.
The system allowed customers to store their payment and shipping details so they could checkout with a single click. Obviously, it’s commonplace today but was an almost mind-blowing step forward in tech making our lives easier at the turn of the century. This case highlighted the growing importance of patents – and their validity when applied to technology – as strategic business tools. It also spoke to an emerging rivalry as each other’s business interests began to overlap.
Though it took a few years and significant resources poured into their legal battle, an amicable settlement was reached in 2007. The agreement’s terms were kept under wraps but it is believed to centre on a cross-licensing deal that gave both companies access to each other’s tech-related patents.
A&M Records and co put site out of business: Another landmark case saw the music industry take on – and beat – their opponents, in this case file-share service Napster.
A number of record labels, led by A&M, filed a lawsuit in California against Napster in 1999, alleging that Napster was guilty of copyright infringement. Their defence was primarily based on them being mere service providers and that they didn’t directly infringe copyrights, while plaintiffs argued that they had knowledge of, and control over, the infringing activities in question.
Debate raged over fair use and whether they were infringing on the labels’ copyrighted property. Napster’s claims of fair use were rejected, the court finding in favour of A&M and ordering Napster to shut down. This injunction was modified on appeal as it was decided that Napster had knowledge of widespread copyright infringement on their site, they materially contributed to the infringing, and that they had a clear and direct financial interest in such activity.
Napster was ordered to prevent users from sharing copyrighted material. This led to them shutting down their network in 2001 and filing for bankruptcy the following year. This was a pivotal case that accelerated the music industry’s move to digital distribution models.
Movie giants team up against VidAngel: In 2016, major studios Disney, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros collectively sued VidAngel for copyright infringement.
VidAngel was a video streaming service that gave viewers the option to omit non-child-friendly content during films and TV shows. It allowed customers to ‘buy’ a film for $20, watch it with their optional content filters and then ‘sell back’ the film for $19. The studios claimed this was copyright infringement and piracy and violated the DMCA.
VidAngel’s defence – that the service was protected under 2005’s Family Movie Act, which allows for the creation of technology that filters content from films – did not convince the courts and they were ordered to cease streaming the copyrighted works of the ‘big four’.
The case highlighted tensions that had been building between those demanding protection by copyright and those using filtering technology.
The court declared that VidAngel had most likely violated the DMCA’s regulations. They reached a $9.9m settlement with the studios. They were ordered to shut down but later relaunched, focusing on filtering Netflix and Amazon Prime content.
UMG lawsuit sees Grooveshark shut down: Music streaming service Grooveshark allowed users to upload music files for other users to stream, similar to YouTube’s business model. In 2011, Universal Music Group sued for large-scale copyright infringement, in a case that highlighted licensing challenges in the era of music being made available online.
Grooveshark’s enormous library was comprised of uploaded files and, as such, claimed to be operating within the law. Its failure to secure permissions from major labels – believing that they could negotiate a deal at a later date – failed and their cause wasn’t helped by bosses instructing employees to upload music themselves.
The scale of their problem became apparent. Grooveshark could have been liable for $736m in damages if the courts decreed their infringement was wilful.
In 2015 its immediate closure was announced as part of the settlement.
RIAA take out Limewire: Music file sharing application Limewire had been used on around a fifth of all PCs and, at the turn of the century, was one of the most popular file-share programs.
But the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) took action, suing Limewire in what is still seen as a pivotal case in the ongoing dispute between file-sharing services and the music industry.
The service was declared to have committed and induced copyright infringement, and engaged in unfair competition. They were aware of their users’ substantial infringement upon which their business model was based.
The five-year battle ended in 2010 with Limewire being shut down and paying a $105m settlement. While still a huge sum, it was a mere fraction of the $75 trillion initially sought by the RIAA – a figure the judge called “absurd”.
The case did mark a sea change in peer-to-peer file-sharing services and reinforced the music industry’s legal stance. It also contributed to the shift towards legal streaming services.
Spotify under fire: No stranger to significant legal battles, Spotify has faced multiple lawsuits from artists and publishers over royalty payments and licensing issues.
These cases serve to highlight the complexities of music licensing in the streaming era. Perhaps the most prominent was Wixen Music Publishing’s lawsuit in 2017. They sued Spotify for $1.6bn, alleging that they were using thousands of tracks without proper licensing and without adequately remunerating the artists and publishers. The staggering amount Wixen tried to claim was one of the largest in the (admittedly still fledgling) music streaming sector.
The case was settled the following year and Spotify has settled numerous other suits, while also looking to improve its licensing and royalty systems.
Capitol Gains: A significant battle in 2011 addressed the question of whether consumers can legally resell digital music files, as they had been able to do with CDs and LPs, and whether consumers truly ‘own’ the digital content they buy.
ReDigi had created a virtual marketplace for ‘second-hand’ digital music where users could upload files they had bought to ReDigi’s cloud. ReDigi would verify that it had been legally purchased and delete it from the user’s PC and resell it to another user.
Capitol Records argued that the process was in violation of copyright law, and that the ‘first sale doctrine’ applied to digital files. The question of whether ReDigi’s business model constituted unauthorised reproduction was also raised.
In 2013 the District Court in New York ruled in Capitol’s favour, finding that the ReDigi service did infringe upon their exclusive right to reproduce its copyrighted works. The case, and the decision, effectively ended the possibility of a secondary market for digital music files legally existing.
As all of these cases show, breach of copyright, the scraping of and misuse of data – at any level or scale – is as serious a legal matter as it is complex.
Barings Law have helped clients whose data – which should be securely protected – has been accessed without their consent, and often without their knowledge.
And, if you suspect that Microsoft and Google have misused your data, we may be in a position to help you make your claim for compensation. Starting your claim with Barings Law couldn’t be quicker – or easier.
At Barings Law, your legal concerns are our top priority. Whether you need guidance on a complex legal matter or have questions about our services, our team is ready to assist you.
Copyright © 2024 Barings Law.
All rights reserved.
