Featured Image Credit: David Mareuil/Anadolu via Getty Images
Apple has officially responded to a high-profile lawsuit which accuses the tech giant of illegally scraping millions of YouTube videos to train its artificial intelligence models.
Three major YouTube channels began the legal battle earlier this year when they filed a class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
The creators behind the likes of h3h3Productions, MrShortGame Golf and Golfholics have alleged that Apple breached the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by accessing and using copyrighted YouTube content without permission to help its AI systems develop.
According to the complaint, Apple allegedly bypassed the anti-scraping protections on YouTube and benefited financially from using creators’ content without providing financial compensation.
Advert
The lawsuit also described the alleged conduct as an attack on the creator community, claiming that their videos had been used to support the rapidly growing generative AI industry without their consent.
Since then, Apple has now filed its formal response, rejecting the claims and asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit.
According to court documents, which were first reported by MacRumors, Apple has argued that the videos in question were made publicly available on YouTube, meaning that anyone could view them without restrictions.
The tech firm’s response read: “Plaintiffs allege that they posted audiovisual works to YouTube, and that any member of the public can see them there. No password. No payment. No lock. No key. Allegedly, YouTube employs technological measures to prevent unauthorized downloading. But because YouTube provides public access to the videos, the alleged technological measures do not control access to the works, as § 1201(a) requires.”
The court doc goes on to reveal that Apple ‘hereby does move the Court for an order dismissing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure’.
It continues: “As set forth in the Motion, the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for circumvention of effective access controls pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A), or, in the alternative, the Complaint’s prayer for relief relating to infringement or other use postcircumvention should be struck as immaterial and impertinent to such a claim. Accordingly, Apple requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, or, in the alternative, strike relief relating to infringement rather than circumvention.”
The case is still in its early stages, and it will now be up to the court to decide whether the lawsuit can proceed or whether Apple’s request for dismissal will be granted.
