Book Writers Sue Google Over Alleged Use of Copyrighted Books to Train Gemini

Дата публикации: 21-07-2026 08:53:28

Hachette Book Group, Cengage Learning, Elsevier, author Scott Turow, and S.
Thank you for being a Ghacks reader. The post Book Writers Sue Google Over Alleged Use of Copyrighted Books to Train Gemini appeared first on gHacks.

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Hachette Book Group, Cengage Learning, Elsevier, author Scott Turow, and S.C.R.I.B.E., Inc. have filed a proposed federal class-action lawsuit against Google.

They accuse the company of copying copyrighted books and journal articles without permission to train its Gemini AI models. The lawsuit was filed on July 10, 2026. The case, Hachette Book Group Inc. et al. v. Google LLC, is under case number 1:26-cv-05870 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint describes Google's alleged actions as "one of the most prolific infringements of copyrighted materials in history." However, these allegations have not been proven in court, and no ruling has been issued on Google's liability.

The Legal Claims and Publisher Deals at the Heart of the Gemini Lawsuit

The plaintiffs allege four legal claims: direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, removal or alteration of copyright-management information, and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

They argue that Google obtained protected material through its book services, internet scraping, and other sources before using the content to train Gemini.

Publishers provided books and journal articles to Google Books, Google Play Books, and Google Scholar under agreements that covered specific uses, such as displaying searchable excerpts, distributing ebooks, and helping users discover academic publications.

The plaintiffs claim that these agreements did not authorize Google to copy entire works into datasets used for commercial generative AI development, and that Google repurposed material received through established publishing relationships for uses not covered by the contracts.

The complaint also states that Google collected books and other protected material through extensive internet scraping, including sources such as pirate websites and publications behind subscription or paywalls.

How This Gemini Case Differs from Google Books, and What Internal Emails Say

Google previously won a copyright case related to digitizing books for search and snippet previews. In 2015, a federal appellate court ruled that these uses were transformative and protected under fair use.

The plaintiffs argue that this earlier ruling covered searchable book databases and limited excerpts, not the use of entire books to train generative AI models.

They claim that AI training serves a different commercial purpose and results in systems that can compete with the original works involved in training. The key difference, they say, lies between search-focused digitization and the training of generative models, which is central to their case.

According to the complaint, a Google employee warned during an internal discussion that using books submitted through Google Play publishing agreements for AI development could create serious legal risks. The employee reportedly estimated that such practices could lead to fines ranging from ten to one hundred billion dollars.

Other internal documents described in the complaint suggest that Google sought professionally written books to enhance the performance of its Gemini AI system.

The plaintiffs claim that tests showed models trained only on public domain books performed worse than those trained on collections that included copyrighted works. The complaint states that Google aimed to include works with curated facts, organized analyses, fictional narratives, and professionally edited writing.

Works Cited in the Complaint and What Gemini Is Accused of Generating

The complaint highlights several works as examples. Hachette lists Peter Brown's The Wild Robot, N.K. Jemisin's The Fifth Season, Becky Lomax's Moon Glacier National Park, and Lemony Snicket's Who Could That Be at This Hour?

It also mentions Turow's Innocent. Cengage includes Cognitive Psychology, Principles of Economics, Milady Standard Barbering, Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies, and Calculus: Early Transcendentals. Elsevier points to copyrighted journal articles in its section of the complaint.

Turow and S.C.R.I.B.E. reference Presumed Innocent, Innocent, and Testimony. The plaintiffs claim these examples are only a sample of the books and articles allegedly copied in connection with Gemini.

The filing presents examples to show that Gemini can produce material related to specific protected books. It claims the system generated content based on The Fifth Season and produced responses involving characters, events, and details from Who Could That Be at This Hour? The plaintiffs also argue Gemini can generate low-cost substitutes for professionally published works.

They estimate the service could produce a 100-page murder mystery set in a quiet seaside town in approximately 20 minutes for 39 cents. The complaint states, "No publisher or author can compete with that." These time and cost figures are allegations from the plaintiffs and have not been verified by the court.

Who Might Join the Class and What Remedies the Plaintiffs Are Seeking

The proposed class would include owners of registered copyrights in books that have International Standard Book Numbers, as well as journal articles identified through Digital Object Identifiers or International Standard Serial Numbers.

To be part of the class, members would need to show that Google copied their works from one of its services, obtained them through web scraping, or used them in connection with Gemini training. The court has not yet certified this proposed class.

The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages or compensation based on their claimed losses and Google's alleged profits, along with legal fees and other remedies available under federal copyright law.

They are asking the court to stop Google from continuing what they allege to be unauthorized copying through an injunction that would restrict the use of protected books and articles in Gemini training and related AI development.

The complaint also requests an accounting of the works and methods Google used to train Gemini. This includes details about the materials obtained, where they were sourced from, and how they were incorporated into Google's systems.

The plaintiffs seek a court-supervised destruction of infringing copies and datasets derived from their works. It remains unclear whether such an order would be legally feasible or appropriate in this case.

Publishers, authors, and academic rights holders who might be part of the proposed class should take some practical steps as the case develops. They should verify which of their titles are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office since the proposed class depends on registered works marked with ISBNs, DOIs, or ISSNs.

It is also advisable to review existing agreements with Google Books, Google Play Books, and Google Scholar to understand what uses those contracts permit.

Additionally, they should keep records of publication dates, distribution channels, and any communications with Google regarding the use of their works in AI training datasets. Tracking the progress of the class certification could also be important, as inclusion in any potential class will depend on the court's decision.

Where the Hachette and Cengage Lawsuit Against Google Stands Now

Hachette and Cengage had previously attempted to join a separate copyright lawsuit filed against Google in California in 2023, which involved authors and visual artists. Google opposed their participation, and the publishers later withdrew that effort before submitting the current case in New York.

Google has not yet issued a detailed public response to the specific allegations in the New York complaint. The company will have the opportunity to respond as the case moves forward through motions, potential discovery, and class-certification processes. No trial date has been set, and the court has not ruled on any of the four claims.

Схожие новости

#	Наименование новости	Тональность	Информативность	Дата публикации
1	Google Rebrands NotebookLM as Gemini Notebook and Expands Cloud Computer Access to AI Pro	0	4.16	17-07-2026
2	European Commission Fines Google €890 Million for Search and Play Store DMA Violations	0	8.51	24-07-2026
3	Waze Adds Five Gemini AI Features, but Only Three Are Live for US Drivers	0	6.66	24-07-2026
4	Reddit and Major Publishers Consider Blocking Google as AI Overviews Cut Search Referral Traffic	0	3.81	23-07-2026
5	Издатели и авторы подали иск против Google	0	5	15-07-2026
6	Απατεώνες «στράτευσαν» το Gemini της Google για phishing	-2	6	13-06-2026
7	ChromeOS 150 Adds Gemini in Class Tools, Local PIN Authentication, and Ends Chrome Apps in Kiosk Mode	0	7.89	21-07-2026
8	OpenAI Confirms Its Models Breached Hugging Face Production Systems During Cyber Benchmark Testing	0	4.9	22-07-2026
9	Gemini’s new Google Play Store integration lets you chat to find Android apps, games	0	5	26-06-2026
10	AI-Written books Are here	0	6	25-06-2026

Классификация: Пресс-релизы. Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 5.34. Источник: www.ghacks.net.