• Pascal's Chatbot Q&As
  • Posts
  • Penguin Random House has added a "Do-Not-Scrape-for-AI" clause to the copyright page of its books, explicitly prohibiting the use of its copyrighted works for training AI models.

Penguin Random House has added a "Do-Not-Scrape-for-AI" clause to the copyright page of its books, explicitly prohibiting the use of its copyrighted works for training AI models.

ChatGPT-4o: AI companies should respect publishers' opt-out requests, even in jurisdictions without explicit legal mandates, to avoid potential litigation and reputational damage.

Author

Pascal Hetzscholdt
October 21, 2024

Question for ChatGPT-4o, Claude and Perplexity: Please analyze the article "Penguin Adds a Do-Not-Scrape-for-AI Page to Its Books" as well as the comments on LinkedIn and create a nice overview as to what Penguin Random House has done, what the pros and cons are and which sentiments are at play among the readers online. Explain whether Penguin Random House has other instruments at its disposal and what AI makers and regulators should be doing in response to this development and any future, similar developments.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Overview of Penguin Random House's Actions:

What Penguin Random House Did:
Penguin Random House has added a "Do-Not-Scrape-for-AI" clause to the copyright page of its books, explicitly prohibiting the use of its copyrighted works for training artificial intelligence (AI) models​. This new stance contrasts with other publishers, which have opted to license their content to AI companies. Penguin's move is aimed primarily at the European Union market, leveraging the legal right under the Digital Single Market Directive to opt out of text and data mining, though it may also influence AI companies' behavior in the U.S.

Pros and Cons of This Approach:

Pros:

  1. Protection of Authors' Rights: This move is designed to protect authors from having their works used in ways that they have not agreed to, such as AI training that might strip context, attribution, or accuracy from their work​.

  2. Preservation of High-Quality Content: It helps Penguin Random House ensure that its works, which are valuable due to their quality and editorial oversight, aren't used without compensation, which could eventually degrade the quality of AI outputs reliant on high-quality data​.

  3. Potential for Monetization: By opting out, Penguin may be positioning itself to negotiate lucrative licensing deals with AI companies, similar to the path that other publishers have taken​.

Cons:

  1. Difficulty in Enforcement: While the clause is a clear signal to AI developers, enforcing this across global platforms could be complex. AI companies may still scrape data inadvertently or through intermediaries​.

  2. Limited Global Impact: The "Do-Not-Scrape" provision may only apply within specific jurisdictions (e.g., the EU), making global compliance uneven. The U.S. lacks comparable laws, leaving some gaps in enforcement​.

  3. Risk of Alienating Tech Companies: Publishers opting out may isolate themselves from AI-driven innovations that rely on vast datasets, potentially reducing opportunities to collaborate or integrate with emerging technologies in the long term​.

Sentiments Among Readers on LinkedIn:

Mixed Reactions:

  • Support for Protecting Creators: Some commenters, especially creators, praised Penguin for defending authors' rights. For example, M. B. expressed frustration with American "fair use" interpretations, arguing that creators should be adequately compensated and that scraping undermines creativity and fairness​.

  • Criticism of Ambiguity and Enforcement: Some professionals, like J. K., pointed out potential ambiguities in how the new clause would interact with AI training focused on educational or research uses. They questioned whether training on small subsets of content for non-commercial purposes might still fall under "fair use"​.

  • Suggestions for Stronger Action: Others proposed more aggressive tactics, such as poisoning datasets with false information to mislead AI models, suggesting that the "Do-Not-Scrape" policy might not be enough to deter unscrupulous actors​.

  • Calls for Legal Reform: Some commenters highlighted the need for stronger legislative action, noting that Penguin's efforts would require consistent legal backing to be truly effective​.

Other Instruments at Penguin's Disposal:

  1. Litigation: Penguin could initiate legal action against companies found scraping its content for AI training, particularly in jurisdictions with clearer regulations on data use.

  2. Licensing Models: The publisher could develop licensing frameworks that allow controlled access to its content, ensuring compensation while maintaining control over how the content is used in AI models.

  3. Technological Solutions: Penguin could invest in technology to detect and block scraping, or to create "honeypot" systems that feed misleading data to scrapers, as suggested by some LinkedIn commenters​.

Recommendations for AI Makers and Regulators:

AI Makers:

  • Adopt Voluntary Compliance: AI companies should respect publishers' opt-out requests, even in jurisdictions without explicit legal mandates, to avoid potential litigation and reputational damage.

  • Transparent Use of Data: AI companies should consider developing systems that cite sources more transparently, as some commenters noted that greater transparency could help address concerns about misappropriation of content​.

Regulators:

  • Strengthen Copyright Laws: Governments, especially in the U.S., should consider introducing clear opt-out mechanisms for content creators similar to the EU's provisions, enabling authors and publishers to have more control over how their works are used in AI training.

  • Balance Innovation with Protection: As AI becomes more integrated into education, research, and commerce, regulators should seek a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring that creators are fairly compensated for the use of their work.

Penguin Random House's new copyright language signals a growing divide in the publishing industry's approach to AI training, underscoring the need for clearer legal frameworks and more transparent AI training practices.


Claude’s answer:

Penguin Random House's AI Training Opt-Out Strategy: A Comprehensive Analysis

What Penguin Random House Has Done

Penguin Random House (PRH) has announced it will add explicit language to all copyright pages of its books, specifically prohibiting the use of its content for training artificial intelligence systems. This notably includes:

  • An express prohibition against using book content for AI training

  • Specific reference to Article 4(3) of the Digital Single Market Directive 2019/790

  • A clear opt-out from text and data mining exceptions

  • EU law allows copyright holders to opt-out of data mining

  • U.S. law is less clear, with ongoing debate about fair use

  • Major AI companies typically respect robot.txt files and paywalls

Business Implications

  • Could force AI companies to:

    • Pay licensing fees for quality content

    • Rely on lower-quality internet content

    • Use outdated published material

Pros and Cons

Advantages

  1. Protects authors' rights and intellectual property

  2. Creates leverage for potential licensing negotiations

  3. Sets a clear stance on content usage

  4. May help maintain quality control of published works

  5. Could lead to fair compensation for content creators

Disadvantages

  1. May not be technically enforceable

  2. Could stifle AI innovation and development

  3. Might create barriers to educational and research uses

  4. Enforcement could be costly and complex

  5. May not address already-scraped content

Online Sentiment Analysis

Supportive Views

  • Strong backing from content creators and rights holders

  • Appreciation for protecting intellectual property

  • Support for authors' right to control their work

  • Recognition of the need to maintain quality standards

Critical Views

  • Skepticism about technical enforceability

  • Concerns about hindering AI progress

  • Questions about fair use implications

  • Doubts about effectiveness without legal action

Practical Suggestions from Commenters

  • Implementation of data poisoning strategies

  • Creation of honeypot content

  • Development of anti-scraping measures

  • Collective action among content creators

Additional Tools Available to PRH

  1. Legal Actions

    • Filing lawsuits against unauthorized use

    • Seeking injunctive relief

    • Pursuing damages for unauthorized use

  2. Technical Measures

    • Digital watermarking

    • Content fingerprinting

    • Access control systems

    • Digital Rights Management (DRM)

  3. Business Strategies

    • Developing licensed training data products

    • Creating partnerships with AI companies

    • Establishing clear usage guidelines

    • Implementing monitoring systems

Recommendations

For AI Makers

  1. Develop clear content usage policies

  2. Implement robust content attribution systems

  3. Create fair compensation models

  4. Engage in proactive dialogue with publishers

  5. Invest in consent-based training data acquisition

For Regulators

  1. Establish clear guidelines for AI training data usage

  2. Develop comprehensive fair use frameworks for AI

  3. Create enforcement mechanisms

  4. Balance innovation with rights protection

  5. Harmonize international regulations

For Future Developments

  1. Create standardized opt-out mechanisms

  2. Develop industry-wide content usage protocols

  3. Establish clear compensation frameworks

  4. Implement transparent attribution systems

  5. Foster collaboration between stakeholders

Conclusion

PRH's move represents a significant step in the ongoing debate about AI training data rights. While the effectiveness of this measure remains to be seen, it highlights the need for clearer regulations and industry standards regarding AI training data usage. Success will likely depend on a combination of legal enforcement, technical measures, and industry cooperation.


Perplexity’s answer:
Penguin Random House, the world's largest publishing house, has taken a significant step to protect its copyrighted works from being used to train AI models without permission. This move has sparked discussions about copyright, fair use, and the future of AI development.

Penguin Random House's Action

Penguin Random House has decided to add explicit language to the copyright pages of all its books, prohibiting their use in training artificial intelligence systems. The new copyright notice will include:"No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner for the purpose of training artificial intelligence technologies or systems. In accordance with Article 4(3) of the Digital Single Market Directive 2019/790, Penguin Random House expressly reserves this work from the text and data mining exception."

Pros and Cons

Pros:

  • Protects authors' rights and intellectual property

  • May force AI companies to pay for high-quality content

  • Sets a precedent for other publishers and content creators

Cons:

  • Could potentially limit AI development and research

  • May lead to AI models trained on lower-quality internet content

  • Might be challenging to enforce effectively

Sentiments Among Readers

The LinkedIn comments reveal a range of opinions:

  1. Skepticism about effectiveness: Some readers question whether this move will be enough to prevent AI companies from using the content.

  2. Support for creators' rights: Many commenters express support for protecting authors' work and ensuring fair compensation.

  3. Concerns about fair use: Some raise questions about the implications for fair use, especially in educational or research contexts.

  4. Suggestions for additional measures: A few readers propose more aggressive tactics, such as data poisoning, to deter AI companies from scraping content.

  5. Legal and regulatory considerations: There's discussion about the role of lawmakers and international copyright laws in addressing these issues.

Other Instruments for Penguin Random House

Penguin Random House could consider:

  1. Legal action: Pursuing lawsuits against companies that violate their copyright terms.

  2. Technological measures: Implementing digital rights management (DRM) or other technical solutions to prevent unauthorized access.

  3. Licensing agreements: Developing paid licensing models for AI companies to access their content legally.

  4. Industry collaboration: Working with other publishers to establish industry-wide standards and practices.

Recommendations for AI Makers and Regulators

For AI makers:

  1. Develop ethical guidelines for data collection and usage.

  2. Invest in creating or acquiring high-quality, properly licensed training data.

  3. Implement transparent citation mechanisms in AI models.

  4. Collaborate with publishers and content creators to establish fair licensing agreements.

For regulators:

  1. Update copyright laws to address AI-specific challenges.

  2. Establish clear guidelines on fair use in the context of AI training.

  3. Develop international frameworks for AI data usage and copyright protection.

  4. Create mechanisms for dispute resolution between content creators and AI companies.

This development highlights the ongoing tension between technological advancement and intellectual property rights. As AI continues to evolve, finding a balance that protects creators while fostering innovation will be crucial for the industry's future.