Several publishers and a well-known writer have sued Google in the Federal Court of New York for unauthorized use of the copyright-protected Gemini model. According to the plaintiff, these works were originally authorized only for the Google Books retrieval footage presentation and did not include AI training purposes.

The plaintiff points to two types of behavior.

The prosecution included Hachette, Cengage, Elsevier, the writer Scott Turow and the author ' s organization S.C.R.I.B.E. They initiated the case in a class action, claiming that Google imported books into the Gemini training process, beyond its original mandate.

The application also stated that Google had removed or modified copyright information on parts of the work in order to cover up the use of materials for model training. If this allegation is established, the focus of the case will not only be on whether it constitutes reasonable use, but will also extend to the question of whether there is an active circumvention of the copyright label.

Existing mandates are at the heart of the controversy.

A key point in this case is that the basis for cooperation between the plaintiff and Google is not entirely absent. The publishers and authors have previously provided Google with book content for Google Books to generate searchable clips to facilitate user access to books.

According to the plaintiff, the scope of the authorization was very clear and limited to a search for displays, excluding the use of the whole book or a copy for training commercial AI models. According to the complaint, Google also used the contents of the book uploaded to Google Play, which likewise did not receive a separate AI training licence.

The New York court is independent.

There have been two previous California cases in the United States in favour of AI, and the court has found that the use of copyright-protected works of training AI could constitute a reasonable use. However, the case was brought before the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York, which was not directly bound by the relevant California judgement.

This means that the New York court can judge the facts of the case in their own right and, in particular, that the plaintiff's emphasis on the “diversion of limited authority to other commercial purposes” may be the focus of the proceedings.

  • Indictment Court: Federal District Court, Southern District of New York
  • Subject matter of the plaintiff: publisher, author and author organization
  • Core dispute: whether book authorization extended to Gemini training

Internal file as focus

The complaint also refers to a document allegedly from within Google. According to the plaintiff, the document warned that training in the use of copyright-protected books AI was “very problematic” for Google and that potential fines could amount to tens of billions of dollars. If this document enters into evidence proceedings, the pressure on the case may rise further.

At present, Google has not responded to this action.