US senators introduce bipartisan bill to make it easier to sue tech companies over AI copyright theft
The proposed AI Accountability and Personal Data Protection Act — which follows a recent hearing in which the US lawmaker accused companies including Meta and OpenAI of pirating vast amounts of protected material — would bar AI companies from training on personal data or copyrighted works.
'AI companies are robbing the American people blind while leaving artists, writers, and other creators with zero recourse,' Hawley said in a statement. 'It's time for Congress to give the American worker their day in court to protect their personal data and creative works.'
Advertisement
3 Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is teaming up with a Democratic colleague to rein in Big Tech.
Getty Images
The bill would allow people to sue for use of their personal data or copyrighted works without giving consent. It would also require companies to disclose which third parties will be given access to data if consent is granted, and provides for financial penalties and injunctive relief.
The Post has sought comment from Meta and OpenAI.
Advertisement
Hawley added that the 'bipartisan legislation would finally empower working Americans who now find their livelihoods in the crosshairs of Big Tech's lawlessness.'
3 Hawley and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) rolled out bipartistan legislation on Monday.
Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images
Blumenthal, his Democratic partner on the bill, underscored privacy risks and the need for legal recourse.
'Tech companies must be held accountable — and liable legally — when they breach consumer privacy, collecting, monetizing or sharing personal information without express consent,' he said.
Advertisement
In recent years, tech firms have been sued by content creators and publishers who allege that their copyrighted material was 'scraped' for use by AI models.
Thomson Reuters successfully sued Ross Intelligence, saying Ross used Westlaw's copyrighted legal headnotes to build its legal research AI. In February, a federal court agreed, ruling that Ross was guilty of copyright infringement.
3 Several tech firms have been sued for allegedly using pirated material to train their large language models.
AFP via Getty Images
The news agency is seeking unspecified damages.
Advertisement
In December 2023, the New York Times filed suit against OpenAI and Microsoft alleging that its articles were used to train systems such as GPT‑4 without permission. That case is ongoing.
Last month, a federal judge said Anthropic's use of books to train its AI model was 'highly transformative' and counted as fair use, but that keeping direct copies ('pirated' versions) in a central library was 'direct infringement.' The fight over damages and remedies is still ahead.
Authors including Richard Kadrey say Meta used their books without permission to train LLaMA and other large language models. A court said Meta's use was also 'highly transformative' and fair use, but the case continues over whether any stored 'pirated' materials create liability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
MTA ditches ban on alcohol ads, dropping activist stance in desperate bid for cash
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has lifted a ban on alcohol ads — dropping its public health activism in a desperate bid for more revenue. The 180 was approved last month, undoing a ban in place since 2017. The move has already drawn the ire of public health workers who gathered outside MTA headquarters on Wednesday to blast the transit agency before a scheduled board meeting. Advertisement 'Promoting alcohol is a really curious decision for an authority that oversees bridges, tunnels and busways,' said Julia McCarthy, senior program officer with the New York Health Foundation. The MTA is hoping to generate an extra $7 million and $10 million a year from the ads — but McCarthy said alcohol advertising has a damaging effect on children and people recovering from substance abuse. 'Alcohol ads encourage adolescents to start to drink earlier and in greater amounts, and they also trigger cravings that can affect those in recovery,' she said. 3 Alcohol ads haven't been seen on subways since MTA banned them in 2018. Getty Images Advertisement Janno Lieber, the MTA's chairman and CEO, told reporters that there will still be limits on alcohol ads, with the displays blocked from digital billboards during peak hours for student commutes, he said. The MTA billboards may still display alcohol ads if they are 'not readable within 500 feet of a school, playground, or place or worship,' according to agency documents. But the new rules do allow alcohol ads at 'major commuter rail hubs and stations next to large venues where alcohol is lawfully sold,' the documents said. Advertisement And advertisements promoting 'train wraps' will also be allowed on S shuttle trains between Times Square and Grand Central. 'We had adopted a couple of narrowly tailored, common sense exceptions to it that make sure that the original purpose of the ban, which remains in effect, is achieved, which is protection of school kids from exposure to them,' Lieber said. The cash-strapped MTA's decision is a turnaround from 2017, when leaders at the time called the new ban 'a big step forward.' 3 Children who see alcohol ads often 'start to drink earlier and in greater amounts,' Julia McCarthy, a senior program officer with the New York Health Foundation, said Christopher Sadowski Advertisement 'These ads are sometimes on the outside of buses where tens of thousands of people can see them, including children' board member Ira Greenberg said at the time, praising the move. The MTA had estimated alcohol ads only generate $2.5 million annually and then-MTA Chairman Joe Lhota said the money would easily be made up. With the recent flip-flop, McCarthy questioned whether there would be a return of tobacco ads, which have been prohibited since 1992. 3 SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images 'With the MTA welcoming the alcohol industry back in, New Yorkers are now looking to question whether cigarette or vaping companies will be next,' McCarthy said.
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Why the Washington Commanders' owners are thinking hard about Trump's demand they restore the ‘Redskins' moniker
The owners of the NFL's Washington Commanders fear they will have to snub the woke mob and restore the original Redskins name – or risk President Trump throttling their deal for a new stadium, On The Money has learned. That, at least, is the word from insiders close to private equity titans Josh Harris and David Blitzer, who in addition to the Commanders own the NBA's Philadelphia 76ers and the NHL's New Jersey Devils through their holding company, Harris Blitzer Sports and Entertainment. The buyout billionaires are facing heat to bring back the Redskins name – and its famed, feathered logo, too – after the commander-in-chief has repeatedly ripped the new nomenclature, recently referring to the franchise as the 'Washington Whatevers.' Advertisement 3 The billionaire owners of the Washington Commanders are facing pressure from President Trump to restore the original Redskins name Getty Images 'I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington,' Trump posted last week. Since then, Harris and Blitzer have been privately warning business associates that the White House does indeed have some leverage over their plans to build a new, $3.7 billion stadium for the team, a source said. Advertisement 'They're really getting nervous about Trump's attacks and how they might impact the stadium deal,' said one person with direct knowledge of the matter. Publicly, Harris and Blitzer have said the Commanders will remain the Commanders. Much of the stadium deal involves working with the decidedly woke DC government run by left-wing mayor Muriel Bowser. The deal has no direct federal funding, with DC agreeing to cover about $1 billion of the cost. Behind the scenes, they say they are parsing all the ways Trump could screw things up for them. The stadium is on federal land leased to the DC government for the next 99 years. 3 'They're really getting nervous about Trump's attacks and how they might impact the stadium deal,' said one person with direct knowledge of the matter. AP Advertisement That means it will need certain approvals from US agencies like the National Capital Planning Commission and the US Commission of Fine Arts – the boards of both are occupied by some Trump appointees. It also needs a nod or two from the Trump administration's environmental team. The fear is that Trump could, as he's done with left-leaning law firms, colleges and major media outfits, use his control of the administrative state to extract concessions, the people at Harris-Blitzer concede. Would Trump ever use his sway over such entities to meddle in a private business deal? Well, we know the answer to that since fighting wokeness appeals to the MAGA base, and quite frankly, most Americans. Note that Trump is a master troller. He can generate unfavorable news cycles and skewer Harris and Blitzer as woke Wall Streeters, potentially hurting team attendance since most football fans are right of center, people close to them fear. Advertisement 3 David Blitzer, left with part-owner Magic Johnson in 2023. Getty Images Recall that former owner Dan Snyder renamed the team in 2020 at the height of the social-justice movement, bowing to the woke NFL and its commissioner Roger Goodell, as well as some advertisers and activists who argued the name was an affront to Native Americans. Snyder had been fighting the switch for years, arguing that the Redskins moniker was hardly a slur, but instead a term of pride in Native American culture. Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters A lot has happened since 2020, including Snyder selling the team to Harris and Blitzer in 2023 for $6.05 billion. There also has been a public backlash against all things woke: See what happened to Bud Light after it used a trans activist in a beer commercial. One sports executive, who asked not to be quoted by name and knows Trump well, said the duo will at the very least have to do what other big companies are doing when confronted by The Donald – bow and kiss the ring. 'He may not ultimately try to kill the stadium deal if they don't change the name but Harris and Blitzer are going to have to grovel before Trump relents,' this person said. A press rep for Harris-Blitzer didn't return a request for comment.
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump rips ‘second tier' Sen. Josh Hawley over his PELOSI Act congressional stock trading ban
President Trump lashed out at Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) Wednesday for forging ahead with his proposed ban on congressional stock trading, accusing the senator of enabling Democrats to target him. Hawley's Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act cleared the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in an 8–7 vote, with the Missouri Republican joining all Democrats. 'Very much like SABOTAGE! The Democrats, because of our tremendous ACHIEVEMENTS and SUCCESS, have been trying to 'Target' me for a long period of time, and they're using Josh Hawley, who I got elected TWICE, as a pawn to help them,' Trump groused on Truth Social. Advertisement 'I don't think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED, because of the 'whims' of a second-tier Senator named Josh Hawley!' Hawley chafed with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a key Trump ally during the committee's hearing earlier in the day Wednesday. 4 Sen. Josh Hawley banded together with Democrats to advance the PELOSI Act out of committee without the chairman's blessing. AP Advertisement 4 President Trump accused Sen. Josh Hawley of backstabbing him with the PELOSI Act. x/Acyn 'This idea that we are going to attack people because they make money is absolutely wrong,' Scott, the wealthiest member of the Senate, argued during the hearing. 'I think it's disgusting what's going on here. But I completely agree with you, we've got to stop people from trading stocks but this [bill] is way different.' Scott also asked how one could sell an illiquid asset under the Hawley proposal. Advertisement 'You're concerned about the illiquid asset provision? It's the same one you voted for last year,' Hawley shot back. The PELOSI Act restricts lawmakers from owning individual stocks or trading them. Due to opposition from Committee Chairman Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Hawley needed to get Democrats on board and reportedly agreed to tack on language ensuring that the president and vice president would face the ban as well. 4 Sen. Rick Scott publicly tangled with Sen. Josh Hawley over the bill to ban congressional stock trading. Getty Images Advertisement Trump seemingly caught wind of that. 'I wonder why Hawley would pass a Bill that Nancy Pelosi is in absolute love with — He is playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats. It's a great Bill for her, and her 'husband,' but so bad for our Country!' the president fumed on Truth Social. 'Why would one 'Republican,' Senator Josh Hawley from the Great State of Missouri, join with all of the Democrats to block a Review, sponsored by Senator Rick Scott, and with the support of almost all other Republicans, of Nancy Pelosi's Stock Trading over the last 25 years.' Hours before the Truth Social post, Trump conveyed open-mindedness to the proposal but cautioned that he would need to dive deeper into the details of it. 'I like it conceptually and you know Nancy Pelosi became rich by having inside information. She made a fortune with her husband, and I think that's disgraceful,' he told reporters Wednesday. 'I study these things really carefully, and this just happened. So I'll take a look at it.' 'What I do think is Nancy Pelosi should be investigated.' Paul Pelosi, the California Democrat's venture capitalist husband, has amassed a fortune through investments he's made over the decades. Pelosi's estimated net worth is $262 million, according to Quiver Quantitative. Advertisement Critics, particularly Republicans, have argued that Paul's activities pose conflict of interest concerns given that his wife is one of the most influential Democrats on Capitol Hill. 4 Rep. Nancy Pelosi has been dogged by concerns for years about her husband's stock trading. Bryan Dozier/NurPhoto/Shutterstock 'Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks, and she has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions,' Pelosi spokesperson Ian Krager told The Post when asked about Trump's comments. The Post reached out to a Hawley spokesperson for comment.
