GoKawiilLawsuit says Apple used a dataset comprising millions of YouTube videos to train an AI model, as described in a study published in late 2024. Here are the details.
Amazon and OpenAI also accused
As spotted by MacRumors, a proposed class action lawsuit filed by Ted Entertainment, Matt Fisher, and Golfholics alleges that Apple circumvented YouTube’s anti-scraping protections to download millions of videos.
According to the document, a team of Apple researchers published a study called STIV: Scalable Text and Image Conditioned Video Generation, in which they say they used a dataset called Panda-70M to help train the video generation model described in the paper.
From the lawsuit:
The Panda 70M dataset functions as a map or index file identifying specific YouTube videos and clips by URL, video identifier, and timestamp. A single YouTube video may be divided into numerous clips, each treated as a separate training sample. Extracting any clip requires independently accessing the source video on YouTube and isolating the designated segment, a process that constitutes a separate act of circumvention for each clip retrieved.
The plaintiffs claim their content appears more than 500 times in the dataset, and are seeking to represent “all others similarly situated” as part of a proposed class action.
In essence, they argue that while the dataset only provides links to the videos, Apple allegedly circumvented YouTube’s anti-scraping protections to download and use the underlying content to train its AI models.
For this reason, they demand a trial jury for all claims, and ask for the following:
Certification of this action as a class action and appointment of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel to represent the Class; Declare that Defendant has willfully circumvented the copyright protection systems of YouTube intended to protect Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’s audiovisual content. For statutory damages (up to the maximum allowed by law per violation), injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. §1203; For such equitable relief under Title 17, Title 28, and/or the Court’s inherent authority as is necessary to prevent or restrain infringement of Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ copyright-protected content, including a preliminary andpermanent injunction requiring that Defendant and its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, directors, successors, assigns, licensees, and all others in active concert or participation with any of them, cease infringing, or causing, aiding, enabling, facilitating, encouraging, promoting, inducing, or materially contributing to or participating in the infringement of any of Plaintiff’s or the Class Members’ exclusive rights under federal law, including without limitation in the content identified in Exhibits A, B, and C; For an award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, to the fullest extent available, on any monetary award made part of the judgment against Defendant; and For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
... continue reading