Technology
Publishers Crash Google's AI Trial as Disney Escalates Video Copyright War
Cengage and Hachette seek to join class action against Google's Gemini AI while entertainment giants mount parallel attacks on video generation tools
Publishers Crash Google's AI Trial as Disney Escalates Video Copyright War Cengage and Hachette seek to join class action against Google's Gemini AI while entertainment giants mount parallel attacks on video generation tools
Major textbook and trade publishers moved to intervene in the class action against Google's Gemini AI today, the same day a key hearing was scheduled, while Disney's cease-and-desist over video generation signals an industry-wide revolt against AI training practices.
Cengage Group and Hachette Book Group filed their motion to join In Re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation last month, but the timing couldn't be more pointed. According to Bloomberg Law, Google had specifically opposed the publishers' intervention, arguing it would disrupt today's class certification hearing. The publishers claim they need separate representation from the authors currently leading the suit, citing what The Straits Times described as prolific infringement of textbooks and trade books used to build Google's AI capabilities.
The publishers' move follows a pattern of escalating copyright battles that now spans text, video, and voice. Disney sent Google a cease-and-desist letter in December, according to CNET, accusing the company's Gemini and Veo AI models of massive copyright infringement. Disney claims Google's tools function as a virtual vending machine for its characters, language that suggests the entertainment giant sees AI video generation as a direct threat to its business model.
The Association of American Publishers announced the intervention bid, framing it as necessary to protect publisher-specific interests. Publishers Weekly reports that Cengage and Hachette argue their concerns differ from individual authors', particularly around textbook licensing and educational content rights. The split echoes the Napster litigation, when music labels separated from individual artists. Different stakeholders, different damages, different endgames.
The video generation front keeps expanding. ByteDance's release of Seedance 2.0 last week triggered immediate legal warnings from Disney and the Motion Picture Association, according to the Pinnacle Tribune. The studios fear AI video generators will undermine the economic foundation of film production, a concern that gained urgency after Disney simultaneously signed a licensing deal with OpenAI for its Sora video tool, as CNET noted.
Get the latest model rankings, product launches, and evaluation insights delivered to your inbox.
Google faces pressure on multiple fronts. Beyond the publisher intervention, Penske Media Corporation sued the company separately over AI-generated summaries in its search results. Straight Arrow News reports that PMC, which owns Rolling Stone and Variety, alleges Google's AI Overview cannibalizes traffic and revenue by scraping content without permission.
The personal rights dimension adds another layer. Former NPR host David Greene sued Google last week, claiming its NotebookLM tool cloned his voice without permission, The Washington Post reported. These individual creator lawsuits run parallel to the corporate actions, suggesting the copyright battle extends beyond traditional media companies.
Legal scholars see fundamental tensions in how copyright law applies to generative AI. CIPIT's analysis of Google's Veo 3 video model shows the style mimicry problem: AI can reproduce the distinctive visual language of specific creators or studios alongside their content. Existing copyright frameworks were not designed for this kind of capability.
According EU AI Act transparency mandate takes effect in August 2026 requiring disclosure of training dat. US courts have denied copyright protection to prompts alone creating a regulatory patchwork that complicates global mandates.
The $1.5 billion settlement between authors and Anthropic last month set what The Straits Times calls a possible benchmark for damages. If that figure scales to publisher catalogs and video libraries, Google could face exposure in the tens of billions.
Publishers claim distinct damages from authors, particularly around textbook and educational content licensing. Disney's virtual vending machine framing suggests studios see AI video as an existential threat, not just infringement. Personal rights cases involving voice cloning and likeness add new legal dimensions beyond traditional copyright claims. EU transparency mandates in August 2026 will require training data disclosure, pressuring the U.S. litigation timeline. The Anthropic settlement benchmark of $1.5 billion could scale dramatically when applied to publisher and studio catalogs.
The publishers' intervention motion faces a decision within weeks. But the question of whether training generative AI on copyrighted works constitutes fair use or infringement remains an open question