Google faces another AI training lawsuit from major publishers

谷歌面临出版商发起的又一起人工智能训练诉讼

A group of publishers and authors have filed a class action lawsuit against Google, accusing the tech giant of using their copyrighted works to train its AI platform, Gemini. The group of plaintiffs, which includes Hachette, Cengage, Elsevier, author Scott Turow, and S.C.R.I.B.E., also alleges that Google intentionally removed or changed copyright information on these works to “conceal… that its Gemini Models were trained on stolen materials,” according to the lawsuit.

一群出版商和作家已对谷歌提起集体诉讼，指控这家科技巨头使用他们的版权作品来训练其人工智能平台 Gemini。据诉讼文件显示，原告方包括阿歇特出版公司（Hachette）、圣智学习（Cengage）、爱思唯尔（Elsevier）、作家斯科特·杜罗（Scott Turow）以及 S.C.R.I.B.E. 等。他们还指控谷歌故意删除或更改了这些作品的版权信息，以“掩盖其 Gemini 模型是在窃取材料的基础上进行训练的事实”。

This lawsuit is just one of many complaints that publishers, authors, and other copyright holders have filed against AI companies such as Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic. While many of these lawsuits are still pending, two early court decisions in California have favored the AI companies, ruling that the use of copyrighted works for AI training is considered “fair use” under U.S. copyright law that has not been updated since before the existence of the internet.

Anthropic was, however, fined $1.5 billion for pirating the works it trained on, marking the largest payout in the history of U.S. copyright law. Around half a million writers were eligible for payments of at least $3,000. However, many authors opted out of receiving the settlement so that they could pursue further legal action over AI training.

然而，Anthropic 因盗用其训练所用的作品而被罚款 15 亿美元，这是美国版权法历史上金额最高的一次赔偿。约有 50 万名作家有资格获得至少 3,000 美元的赔偿。不过，许多作家选择放弃和解，以便就人工智能训练问题寻求进一步的法律行动。

The California judges’ decisions don’t bode well for how other courts may view the tech companies’ fair use defense, but the conflict is too nuanced for these rulings to establish an inarguable precedent. The lawsuit against Google was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, giving a different judge the opportunity to weigh in.

加州法官的裁决对于其他法院如何看待科技公司的“合理使用”辩护来说并非好兆头，但由于争议过于复杂，这些裁决尚无法确立无可辩驳的先例。针对谷歌的诉讼是在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院提起的，这让另一位法官有机会对此案进行权衡。

In the Google case, the publishers have a more nuanced, long-term relationship with the company. The lawsuit explains that publishers and authors have a long history of providing Google with copyrighted works for the specific purpose of making books searchable through Google Books. These search results do not allow users to view entire books. Instead, they provide access to short snippets of the book along with bibliographic information.

在谷歌的案件中，出版商与该公司之间存在一种更为微妙的长期关系。诉讼解释称，出版商和作家长期以来一直向谷歌提供版权作品，其特定目的是为了让书籍可以通过“谷歌图书”（Google Books）进行搜索。这些搜索结果不允许用户查看整本书，而是提供书籍的简短片段以及书目信息。

The plaintiffs claim that Google trained Gemini on copies of these books, as well as books uploaded to the Google Play store, even though it never received permission to do so. “Google illegally copied works from all these scope-limited programs for AI training, knowing it lacked authorization to do so,” the lawsuit reads.

原告声称，谷歌在未经许可的情况下，利用这些书籍的副本以及上传到 Google Play 商店的书籍来训练 Gemini。诉讼书中写道：“谷歌在明知缺乏授权的情况下，非法复制了所有这些范围受限项目中的作品用于人工智能训练。”

The plaintiffs also cite an internal document from Google that allegedly states that using copyrighted books for AI training could be “highly problematic for Google” and might result in “$10Bs-$100Bs in potential fines.” Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

原告还引用了谷歌的一份内部文件，据称该文件指出，使用版权书籍进行人工智能训练对谷歌来说可能“极具问题”，并可能导致“数百亿至上千亿美元的潜在罚款”。谷歌未立即回应置评请求。