IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT NEWS: Professors accuse Apple of infringing copyrighted works in training its AI models, (Oct 23, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The putative class action complaint alleges that Apple, Inc. infringed the plaintiffs’ and class members’ copyrights by reproducing their registered works without authorization as a part of amassing centralized databases of training materials and using that data to train its “Apple Intelligence” AI models on the plaintiffs’ and class members’ copyrighted books and other works.

Two professors at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University (collectively, plaintiffs) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (Class) have filed a class action copyright infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs and Class members have been injured by the Apple’s direct copyright infringement of the their copyrighted works and claimed that they are entitled to statutory damages, actual damages, restitution of profits, and other remedies provided by law or in equity (Martinez-Conde v. Apple Inc., No. 3:25-cv-08695-PHK (N.D. Cal. filed on Oct. 19, 2025)).

Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen L. Macknik are Professors of Ophthalmology, Neurology, and Physiology & Pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University. Professor Macknik is Professor Martinez-Conde’s writing partner and husband. They have multiple copyright registrations. Apple is an electronics and media company that designs, manufactures, and sells software and hardware products, including the ubiquitous iPhone. In or around June 2024, Apple announced the development of its commercial artificial intelligence platform, called Apple Intelligence. Apple Intelligence includes multiple generative-AI models and related tools and technologies. Plaintiffs and the Class are authors who have registered copyrights for their published works.

According to the complaint, to train the generative-AI models that are part of Apple Intelligence, Apple first amassed an enormous library of raw training data. Apple scraped the internet with a web-crawler called “Applebot.” It also utilized training datasets that contained pirated books in the Books3 shadow library. Part of Apple’s data library includes unauthorized copies of the plaintiffs’ and class members’ copyrighted works that were copied without authorization.

The plaintiffs argue that generative AI models like those used in Apple Intelligence are only as good as the training data on which they are trained. Bad writing in training data results in less valuable, less useful AI models. Good writing in training data makes AI outputs better and models more valuable. This is why Apple and other AI companies prioritize and use high quality writing, like copyrighted works, to train and fine-tune their models.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs and the Class did not consent to the unauthorized reproduction by Apple and use of their works to be stored in databases for general use by Apple or for use in any Apple Intelligence model, including the Foundation Intelligence Models and OpenELM language models. Additionally, the plaintiffs and the Class did not consent to Apple making further reproductions of their works or preparing altered derivative work based on their copyright works to use as training data for Apple intelligence models. However, Apple prepared derivative works by processing and modifying the raw training data they copied, including plaintiffs’ books, to create derivative training data sets used in training their Apple Intelligence models.

The plaintiffs contend that the market for licensing AI training data is growing rapidly. Licensing deals to use copyrighted works as training data between AI developers and publishers are regularly in the news. Nevertheless, Apple did not attempt to pay these authors for their contributions to their commercial AI products that compete directly with them and their copyrighted works. Further, Apple did not seek licenses to copy and use the copyrighted books it used to train to its models. Instead, it intentionally evaded payment by using books already compiled in pirated datasets.

The plaintiffs allege that Apple has illegally copied the plaintiffs copyrighted works to train its AI models, whose outputs compete with and dilute the market for those very works—works without which Apple Intelligence would have far less commercial value. The plaintiffs argue that this conduct has damaged the plaintiffs’ and Class members’ intellectual property, and deprived them of control over their work, undermined the economic value of their copyrighted works, and positioned Apple to achieve massive commercial success through unlawful means.

Claims, remedies sought. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial for direct copyright infringement on their behalf and on behalf of the Class. They seek to permanently enjoin Apple from the unlawful, unfair, and infringing conduct alleged herein; and destruction under 17 U.S.C. § 503(b) of all Apple Intelligence or other LLM models and training sets that incorporate the plaintiff’s and Class members’ works. The plaintiffs and the Class also seek statutory damages, compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, and any other relief that may be permitted by law or equity.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-08695-PHK.

Attorneys: Joseph R. Saveri (Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP) for Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen L. Macknik.

Companies: Apple Inc.

News: AINews Copyright TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews GCNNews