\nAs\u00a0Tim Flach,\u00a0photographer and President of the\u00a0Association of Photographers, puts it, they look like they\u2019ve had cosmetic surgery.\u00a0Photographing these monkeys was not easy. Flach had to venture into the mountains for days before, by sheer luck or fate, he managed to snap a winning photo that made it into his book.
\nFlach\u2019s efforts to achieve his masterpieces are similar to those of many artists\u2014photographers, graphic designers, painters, journalists, and novelists\u2014who have gone to painstaking, time-consuming, and costly lengths to achieve their work. They didn\u2019t just press a magic button to make it all happen. But now? Google wants them to hand their creations over\u2014for free.
\nThat\u2019s the essence of Google\u2019s recent policy proposal on artificial intelligence (AI).
\nCrying out that the AI industry is held back by regulations and copyright law, Google has crafted a policy proposal that puts forth its own ideas on how the AI industry should be governed. Google is spinning a fairy tale, one where it plays the benevolent hero. Except that this proposal favors Google in every single way imaginable. Remember Google\u2019s \u201cdon\u2019t be evil\u201d mantra? Turns out, there\u2019s a footnote: \u201cUnless there\u2019s profit to be made.\u201d
\nNavigating Copyright and Fair Use: Is Google Exploiting Legal Loopholes?
\nA few years ago, Flach, received a phone call. His work had been \u201cstolen\u201d by AI. Speaking to The Times, Flach didn\u2019t mince words. \u201cThis harvesting of our work\u2026 it\u2019s the same as a parasite that sucks the light out of its host without invitation.\u201d
\nHe was told that he was one of the most \u201cscraped\u201d artists in the world, another way of saying that companies have used his photos\u2014without his permission\u2014to train their AI systems. In Flach\u2019s case, his photos were used to train Midjourney, an image generator that uses AI to create images on the fly. Adding insult to injury, the system didn\u2019t just steal his work; it let users replicate his entire photographic style with the click of a button.
\nI reached out to Flach to get his thoughts on Google\u2019s policy proposal. Flach called Google\u2019s policy statement \u201cegregious from a creators\u2019 perspective.\u201d
\n\u201cFor me copyright is the lifeblood of my professional career; it gives me the power and opportunity to control and licence my work, which in turn means that any income I make I can invest back into my business which allows me to carry on photographing and contributing to conservation projects.\u201d
\nIt\u2019s common for artists to sell their styles as presets. Selling presets is a legitimate way for artists to profit from their style. But Google? It doesn\u2019t want to buy presets, it wants to take them without paying a cent under the guise of \u201cbalanced copyright rules.\u201d
\nGoogle insists that these so-called \u201cbalanced copyright rules\u201d are \u201ccritical\u201d for AI to unlock scientific and social advances. It also downplays any impact on rightsholders, claiming the harm will be minimal. But the real giveaway? Google\u2019s true concern isn\u2019t fairness: It\u2019s about avoiding \u201chighly unpredictable, imbalanced, and lengthy negotiations.\u201d
\nIs Fair Use Really Fair?
\nBut this is where it gets tricky. Basic \u201cfair use\u201d law allows the limited use of copyrighted material without obtaining permission. To put it simply: Using an image as my desktop wallpaper? Fair use. Printing and selling a thousand copies? Copyright infringement.
\nGoogle will have a hard time defending this, though. A recent ruling in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence makes that clear. Judge Stephanos Bibas set a precedent: Training AI with copyrighted data is not \u201cfair use.\u201d
\nBut beyond the legal battles, this raises a deeper philosophical question: Is AI truly \u201clearning\u201d from human work, or is it merely replicating it?
\n\u201cI think the key distinction lies in intent and scale,\u201d Flach tells me. \u201cA budding photographer or student studying Ansel Adams is engaging in a deeply human, interpretative process. They learn, internalise, and then create something new through their own lens\u2014literally and figuratively.\u201d
\n\u201cAI, on the other hand, doesn\u2019t \u2018learn\u2019 in that way. It ingests vast amounts of work, including copyrighted material, and then generates outputs without necessarily transforming it in a way that reflects individual creativity. If an AI is trained on my images and can produce something indistinguishable from my work, is that really learning, or is it replication?\u201d
\nThe Copyright Controversy: Google\u2019s Longstanding Battle with Content Creators
\nThis isn\u2019t the first time Google has been accused of using copyrighted data and profiting from it. Google has long been accused of exploiting copyrighted content\u2014like displaying website snippets in search results. While this made life easier for users, it siphoned traffic away from publishers, cutting into their ad revenue.
\nThis battle escalated in 2024 when a group of artists sued Google, claiming its Imagen AI was trained on their work without permission.
\nGoogle isn\u2019t alone in this, either. Getty Images accused Stability AI of scraping millions of images from its website without consent. It\u2019s not just limited to images. The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for unauthorized use of its articles to train GPT large language models.
\nBut why do these companies risk legal battles just to scrape data? Because, like a well-read scholar, an AI\u2019s intelligence is only as good as its sources.
\nThe accuracy and success of AI models depend on how much data it has been trained on. The more an AI learns how we write and draw, the better it becomes at mimicking us, making it more valuable. Plus, there\u2019s only so much truly \u201cfree\u201d data out there, like books, artwork, and music that are in the public domain.
\nThis is why companies turn to copyrighted data, which includes articles written and published by news organizations, videos uploaded to YouTube by content creators, images drawn by artists and shared on Instagram, and photographs taken by photographers like Flach.
\nPlaying By A Different Set of Rules
\nThis wouldn\u2019t be an issue if AI companies played by the same rules like Spotify paying record labels for music or news agencies licensing Getty images. But instead of compensating creators, these companies are bypassing them entirely.
\nFlach acknowledges that licensing AI training data could be a path forward, but only after companies are held accountable for past copyright violations. Without transparency, he argues, creators will continue to be exploited in the shadows. \u201cThe main issue is about transparency over what creative works are being used to train, weight, and fine-tune certain GAI (generative artificial intelligence) programs and how I as a creator can protect my photographs from being exploited without my permission or compensation, and whether a program released to users unfairly competes with my profession as a photographer.\u201d
\nIf these AI giants refuse to pay for content, the least they could do is follow Meta\u2019s lead\u2014giving users the right to opt-out. But even that seems too much to ask.
\nBut individuals and organizations with copyrighted materials aren\u2019t the only ones Google wants to screw over. In its policy proposal, Google wants more oversight of AI patents. The company claims that this is to discourage \u201clow-quality\u201d patents. Google also calls for the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process to continue, allowing companies to challenge invalid AI-related patents to avoid patent roadblocks.
\nIt sounds like a good thing, but the reality of it is that Google wants to use these as weapons to challenge the patents from smaller firms that have fewer resources.
\nBig Tech: Taking A Page Out of Big Pharma\u2019s Playbook
\nFor years, pharmaceutical giants have used legal loopholes and aggressive patent tactics to suppress competition, extend monopolies, and block innovation. Now, Big Tech is following the same playbook with AI.
\nIn the pharmaceutical industry, patents are weapons. Companies use strategies like evergreening, where they make minor tweaks to existing drugs (such as changing a pill\u2019s coating) to extend patents and block generics from entering the market. They also file patent thickets. This consists of dozens of overlapping patents on a single drug to bury competitors in litigation. Lastly, they also use litigation as a weapon. They drown smaller biotech firms in lawsuits they can\u2019t afford, forcing them to sell or shut down.
\nThese tactics have kept life-saving medications expensive and delayed cheaper alternatives for years. Now, Google and other AI giants are applying the same legal warfare to artificial intelligence.
\nGoogle\u2019s recent AI policy proposal isn\u2019t just about copyright, it\u2019s also about patents. The company claims it wants more oversight of AI patents to discourage \u201clow-quality\u201d filings and promote innovation.
\nGoogle\u2019s Power Grab
\nBut let\u2019s call this what it really is: A power grab.
\nSmaller AI firms rely on patents to protect their inventions. It\u2019s one of the only ways they can compete against trillion-dollar giants like Google. If Google can challenge and invalidate those patents, it can crush potential competitors before they become a threat. It will also allow them to freely absorb their technology without paying for it. It could also lead to the elimination of licensing negotiations entirely.
\nThe AI industry is still young. Right now, we\u2019re at a crossroads. If Google succeeds in shaping patent rules, copyright laws, and AI governance in its favor, we risk creating a closed AI ecosystem. One where startups never get a chance to compete. One where artists, writers, and researchers have no leverage and AI becomes monopolized by a handful of mega-corporations.
\nIn the pharmaceutical world, these tactics have kept life-saving drugs out of reach for those who need them most. In AI, they could lock out independent creators, limit technological progress (the very thing Google\u2019s policy proposal is complaining about), and centralize power in the hands of a few.
\nSo What\u2019s Next? The Future of AI, Copyright, and Government Oversight
\nIf Google gets its way, what does this mean for content creators, journalists, and artists? Uncompensated data scraping could become the norm. AI-generated content could also flood the market, reducing demand for original work. Creators could lose control over their own styles, voices, and artistic identities.
\nFlach warns me that this isn\u2019t just a copyright issue, it\u2019s an existential threat to creative industries. \u201cThe danger is that this becomes a slippery slope where high-quality creative work is devalued because \u2018the machine can do it.\u2019 And once that happens, where does it leave the next generation of artists and photographers?\u201d
\nThe good news is that some governments are already taking a harder stance against AI exploitation. For example, the EU\u2019s AI Act introduces stricter rules on AI transparency and training data usage. The UK and certain US states are exploring legislation that forces AI companies to disclose what data they train on.
\nFlach acknowledges that compensation for past copyright violations may be difficult. But he argues that failing to push back now sets a dangerous precedent. \u201cThe reality is that the genie is already out of the bottle, and clawing back fair compensation is going to be an uphill battle. But that doesn\u2019t mean it shouldn\u2019t be pursued. If we don\u2019t at least push for accountability now, we set a precedent that devalues creative work going forward.\u201d
\nConclusion: A Crossroads for AI and Creativity
\nAI has the potential to change the creative landscape forever. But who benefits from it, and more importantly, at whose expense? Google and other AI giants want a world where they take, create, and profit without paying the people who made it possible in the first place.
\nIf AI is the future, then it\u2019s up to artists, journalists, and policymakers to ensure it\u2019s a future where creativity is valued and not exploited. As Flach puts it, \u201cWe need governments across the globe to recognise the impact these programs are having in exploiting our works for profit and supplanting creators\u2019 professional careers in the process.\u201d
\nThe post The AI Copyright Heist: Why Google Wants to Rewrite the Rules\u2014For Itself appeared first on Android Headlines.
\n
![](\"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/google-ai-vampire-androidheadlines.jpg\")
\nSource: ndroidheadlines.com <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"