N※N

'People' Magazine CEO Slams Google as 'Worst' AI Content Theft

  //food-wine.news-articles.net/content/2025/09/12 .. -ceo-slams-google-as-worst-ai-content-theft.html
  Published in Food and Wine on Friday, September 12th 2025 at 12:04 GMT by breitbart.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

People Magazine CEO Calls Google “The Worst AI Content Theft” in Heated Open Letter

In an explosive statement released on the People magazine website this week, the outlet’s chief executive officer slammed Google for what she described as “the most egregious example of AI‑driven content theft” in the industry. The letter, which has already sparked debate across publishing circles, accuses the search‑engine giant of routinely siphoning and repackaging People’s copyrighted articles through its new AI tools—Bard and the upcoming Gemini model—without permission or compensation.

The Core of the Complaint

According to the CEO’s letter, Google’s AI “reads, distills, and reproduces” People’s stories in a manner that effectively erases the original author’s voice and the editorial labor that went into each piece. She argues that this process violates copyright law, undermines journalistic integrity, and erodes the incentive for quality reporting. “If the only way my hard‑earned story can be found is as a rewritten, tokenized, and monetized snippet from an AI engine, then my work is worthless,” the CEO wrote. “That is the very definition of theft.”

The letter also accuses Google of refusing to engage in a licensing agreement with People. The publisher’s representative points out that Google has repeatedly declined to offer a “clear, fair, and transparent” compensation structure for the use of its content. The CEO’s tone is unapologetic: “We will pursue every legal avenue available to us to protect our intellectual property and the livelihoods of the writers who make People possible.”

How Google’s AI Is Allegedly Misusing Content

People magazine’s grievance centers on Google’s new AI “content assistant,” which can be accessed through the search bar or via its dedicated AI portal. When a user searches for a topic, the assistant often produces a concise summary that mirrors the structure and wording of People’s original articles. These AI‑generated snippets appear prominently in search results, frequently pushing the original stories down to a later page or obscuring them entirely.

Google’s public statements have repeatedly framed the process as a “transformative” use that falls under the “fair use” doctrine. The company cites its policy page on the use of copyrighted text in AI training, which states that “transformative use, such as providing summaries, is permissible under copyright law.” However, People’s CEO contends that the assistant’s output is not genuinely transformative—it simply reproduces the gist while retaining too much of the original phrasing and context.

Industry Context: A Growing Wave of Opposition

People magazine is not alone in its frustration. Earlier this year, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) launched a lawsuit against OpenAI and Google’s subsidiary, Alphabet, claiming that large‑language models (LLMs) trained on copyrighted text without licensing agreements constitute unlawful infringement. The WGA’s suit alleges that the models’ training data includes a vast corpus of copyrighted works, including news articles, books, and scripts, thereby violating the authors’ exclusive rights.

In addition, the Associated Press (AP) has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over what it describes as “deceptive” practices by AI companies that use its content to generate news summaries. The AP’s attorney notes that the AI‑produced versions are often distributed at no cost, depriving the agency of revenue it could otherwise collect through licensing.

Google has responded to these allegations by emphasizing its “commitment to working with publishers to ensure fair compensation.” The company has launched a “Publisher Partnership Program” that offers revenue sharing for AI-generated content that uses its copyrighted material. Yet, People magazine’s CEO has stated that the program is insufficient—“the payments are far below the value of the content and fail to reflect the scale of the misuse.”

Potential Legal and Market Implications

If People magazine’s legal action moves forward, it could set a critical precedent for how AI providers handle copyrighted material. A court ruling in favor of People would likely force AI companies to renegotiate licensing agreements across the board, potentially leading to a wave of settlements or higher licensing fees. Conversely, a dismissal could embolden other tech firms to continue expanding their AI training datasets with minimal oversight.

Publishers are already reacting. Some, like The New York Times and Reuters, have started to block AI-generated summaries of their stories in search results entirely. Others are exploring new revenue models—subscription‑only AI assistants that curate content exclusively for paying users, thereby turning the problem into a monetizable feature.

Google’s chief technology officer, Sundar Pichai, issued a brief statement acknowledging the tension but underscored the company’s intent to “continue working with the publishing community.” He reaffirmed that Google’s AI systems are designed to comply with international copyright law and that the company “remains open to collaboration on solutions that protect the interests of creators and consumers alike.”

Looking Ahead

The People magazine CEO’s letter has already ignited a broader conversation about the ethics of AI training and the protection of creative work. While the legal battle remains in its infancy, the stakes are clear: AI’s growth could redefine the publishing landscape, but only if it does so on a foundation that respects the rights of those who produce the content in the first place.

As the debate unfolds, stakeholders—from individual journalists to multinational corporations—will be watching closely to see whether Google’s approach will be recalibrated to accommodate the legitimate claims of content owners, or whether the tech giant will continue to push its AI models in the face of mounting opposition. The outcome may well determine the future of digital publishing and the very nature of how we consume news in the AI‑driven era.