Jensen Huang-led Nvidia faces copyright infringement lawsuit over AI training

Three authors, Brian Keene, Abdi Nazemian, and Stewart O'Nan, have taken legal action against Nvidia, accusing the tech giant of using their copyrighted works without permission. Their books were allegedly part of a massive dataset used to train Nvidia's NeMo AI platform in simulating ordinary written language.

This dataset, comprising about 196,640 books, was reportedly removed in October following copyright infringement claims.

What is Nvidia's NeMo AI?

Nvidia's NeMo platform is marketed as an efficient and cost-effective solution for adopting generative AI technologies. Generative AI, capable of creating new content from various inputs like text and images, has been at the centre of increasing litigation involving writers and major publications like the New York Times.

Nvidia, primarily known for its AI-powering chips, has seen a significant surge in its market value, which can be attributed to the growing interest in AI technologies.

The legal battle

The lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco federal court, suggests that Nvidia's removal of the dataset is an admission of copyright infringement. The authors are seeking unspecified damages on behalf of all U.S. authors whose works were used to train NeMo's large language models over the past three years.

The case highlights the growing concern over the use of copyrighted material in training AI technologies without proper authorization.

The works in question

The lawsuit specifically mentions three works: "Ghost Walk" by Brian Keene (2008), "Like a Love Story" by Abdi Nazemian (2019), and "Last Night at the Lobster" by Stewart O'Nan (2007).

This lawsuit adds Nvidia to the list of companies, including OpenAI and Microsoft, facing legal challenges over the use of copyrighted content in AI development. 

As AI technologies continue to evolve, the issue of copyright infringement becomes increasingly complex, highlighting the need for clear guidelines and respectful use of intellectual property. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for how AI companies engage with copyrighted works in the future.