Somewhat more difficult to run a business when an American multinational steals your revenue and your content.
On the other hand, the complainer mentioned is the Daily Mail.
I'd much rather see a non specific ruling over whether or not summarizing already short articles is copyright infringement - regardless of who's doing it. Copyright litigation and legislation tends to favor the richer party no matter where it happens.
Newspapers are notorious for lifting stories and photos from social media. They rarely bother to compensate the original creator either.
Perhaps a better approach is to make sure that the AI summaries are just as liable for libel actions, and regulator mandatory corrections, as the newspapers.
On the other hand, the complainer mentioned is the Daily Mail.
I'd much rather see a non specific ruling over whether or not summarizing already short articles is copyright infringement - regardless of who's doing it. Copyright litigation and legislation tends to favor the richer party no matter where it happens.
Newspapers are notorious for lifting stories and photos from social media. They rarely bother to compensate the original creator either.
Perhaps a better approach is to make sure that the AI summaries are just as liable for libel actions, and regulator mandatory corrections, as the newspapers.