.png)
A closer look at copyright risks and intellectual property protections for AI developers
The recent legal pressure facing AI startup Perplexity has brought renewed attention to the importance of respecting intellectual property rights in artificial intelligence development. As AI models ingest, analyze, and repurpose massive volumes of digital content, the legal boundaries surrounding ownership and fair use are being tested like never before. The stakes are high not only for new AI entrants but also for established tech firms building products on large language models (LLMs).
The Perplexity Case
Perplexity AI, a rising search engine competitor using generative AI, recently received a cease-and-desist letter from media outlet Forbes, which accused the company of republishing its articles without permission.
According to Forbes, Perplexity’s system paraphrased or directly quoted content without appropriate attribution or licensing—a clear violation of copyright law under current U.S. statutes.
This case is not an isolated incident. AI systems like those developed by OpenAI and Anthropic also face growing scrutiny for potentially drawing from copyrighted materials during training or output generation. The rise of such cases indicates a broader need for legal clarity and stricter enforcement protocols.
Why Intellectual Property Rights Matter
Intellectual property (IP) serves as the foundation of innovation economies. Copyright law protects original works of authorship, such as journalism, books, software, and visual media. With AI's ability to scrape and synthesize data at scale, developers must walk a fine line between transformative use and infringement. The U.S. Copyright Office has repeatedly emphasized that derivative works produced by AI systems do not automatically qualify for protection unless a human author can be identified.
More than 58% of companies building AI tools in 2024 express concern about legal exposure related to IP rights, according to a report by McKinsey & Company.
Best Practices for Developers
To reduce the risk of copyright infringement and legal backlash, AI developers and product managers should consider the following practices:
Use Licensed or Public Domain Datasets
Training AI on openly licensed datasets—such as those provided by Creative Commons or the Common Crawl—reduces risk considerably.
Attribution and Transparency
Clearly identify sources in any AI-generated output when direct excerpts or paraphrased content is used.
Implement Filters and Audits
Regular audits of AI outputs can help detect unauthorized replication of third-party content.
Legal Reviews and IP Counsel
Engage with legal professionals specializing in AI ethics and digital rights, such as those at EFF or Harvard's Berkman Klein Center.
Respect Robots.txt and Paywalls
AI crawlers must honor digital boundaries set by websites, particularly where robots.txt files and subscription-only access are involved.
According to AI policy expert Matthew Butterick, "Allowing AI to replicate and monetize human-created content without permission sets a dangerous precedent for creative industries."
Legal Framework and the Road Ahead
Though Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act permits fair use under limited circumstances, the current lack of legal precedent regarding AI outputs makes it difficult to draw firm lines. Several lawsuits—including one filed by the New York Times against OpenAI—are likely to shape how courts interpret machine-generated content under copyright law.
International bodies are also watching closely. The European Union’s AI Act proposes stricter requirements for training data transparency and IP protection, which could create global ripple effects.
AI development and IP rights are on a collision course. While technological innovation continues at breakneck speed, regulatory frameworks remain a few steps behind.
As more cases like Perplexity’s emerge, AI firms must adapt and adopt clear, ethical content sourcing strategies to protect both themselves and the original creators of the content fueling their systems. The alternative is a future shaped not by innovation—but by litigation.
Comments