First Hearing in AI Lawsuit Between Three Major Broadcasters and Naver: Clash Over 'Unauthorized Use'

The first hearing in the civil lawsuit filed by the three major terrestrial broadcasters (KBS, MBC, and SBS) against Naver, alleging unauthorized use of their articles for training generative artificial intelligence (AI), was held. The three broadcasters claimed that their rights were infringed upon by the use of their articles without consent, while Naver countered that it has the right to use news content according to its terms of service.

The 63rd Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Chief Judge Lee Guyoung, held the first hearing on September 18 for the damages lawsuit filed by the three broadcasters against Naver.

Earlier in January this year, the three broadcasters filed a lawsuit seeking damages for copyright infringement and violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, as well as a ban on the use of their articles for AI training, claiming that Naver had used their articles without authorization to train its generative AI models, HyperCLOVA and HyperCLOVA X.

The three broadcasters argued, "The defendant (Naver), which holds a collectively dominant position in the market, has invested a vast amount of money and used core resources-news content-without authorization for its commercial AI products, resulting in an infringement of rights." They are seeking 200 million won in damages from Naver for each company.

In response, Naver stated, "It is difficult to exercise our right to defense because it is unclear which parts of the articles the plaintiffs are seeking to prohibit. They need to specify which parts they claim have been infringed for us to respond." Naver also argued, "The plaintiffs claim that Naver used their articles for AI training without authorization, but the terms of service submitted by the plaintiffs clearly exist, and news was provided through content agreements."

The court summarized, "Regarding the intent of the claim, Naver argues that the specific works in question have not been identified, while the three broadcasters countered in writing that, given the nature of this new type of lawsuit, it is difficult to specify further." The court added, "The main issue is copyright infringement, but there needs to be an effort to specify which works were infringed so that both the court and the opposing party are aware."

Additionally, the court noted the dispute over the news content provision agreements and mentioned that current affairs reporting is not protected under copyright law, requesting both sides to submit rebuttal briefs. The court will hold a second hearing on November 6 to review the main arguments from both parties once more.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.