On August 5, 2025, News Corp escalated its criticism of artificial intelligence companies, accusing them of improperly harvesting and monetizing copyrighted content—including books authored by former President Donald Trump—for use in generative AI systems. The media conglomerate, which owns publishing giant HarperCollins, voiced concerns that AI developers have been ingesting high-value literary works without permission or compensation. CEO Robert Thomson minced no words, declaring, “The Art of the Deal has become The Art of the Steal,” in reference to the most iconic Trump book, even though it was published by a different imprint. News Corp controls the rights to several other Trump titles, and the statement underscores its growing frustration with what it sees as widespread misuse of proprietary content.
This latest warning comes amid an industry-wide clash between content creators and AI developers. News Corp confirmed it is currently in talks with several leading artificial intelligence firms to negotiate licensing agreements. However, it also made clear that it is prepared to pursue legal action if those talks do not result in meaningful compensation or safeguards. The company has already demonstrated its willingness to litigate, having filed a major lawsuit against startup Perplexity AI earlier this year. That suit alleges systematic copyright infringement, content scraping, and commercial misuse of articles from News Corp properties such as The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. The company is seeking substantial damages and legal injunctions to halt further unauthorized use.
Read Also: https://todayus.com/u-s-tech-firms-collaborate-to-launch-nationwide-5g-expansion-initiative/
This confrontation over Trump’s literary works is only the latest flashpoint in a much broader reckoning over how artificial intelligence models are trained and deployed. As generative systems become more advanced, they increasingly rely on massive datasets culled from books, news archives, scientific literature, and other proprietary sources. Critics argue that this content—created through years of human labor—is being appropriated without consent or compensation. The technology industry often defends such practices under the legal doctrine of “fair use,” asserting that the data is used in a transformative, non-competing manner. But publishers, authors, and legal scholars are pushing back, contending that the market for original works is being undermined and that existing copyright law is being stretched beyond its intended scope.
Courts are beginning to weigh in. Earlier this year, a landmark ruling in favor of Thomson Reuters delivered a major blow to AI companies seeking refuge under fair use claims. The case centered on whether Ross Intelligence, a legal tech firm, had infringed on copyrighted legal texts by reproducing them in its AI-driven tools. The court’s decision sided firmly with content holders, marking a potential turning point in how similar cases may be adjudicated in the future. That ruling, alongside mounting lawsuits from The New York Times and other media organizations, is fueling an emerging consensus that generative AI must operate under clearer licensing frameworks.
Legislators are also entering the fray. In the United States, bipartisan bills have been introduced that would give content creators the ability to opt out of AI training models and sue for unauthorized use. These proposals reflect growing public concern that the rapid evolution of AI is outpacing both ethical norms and legal protections. Similar debates are unfolding globally. In Australia, a government proposal to create AI exemptions from copyright liability has drawn backlash from writers, publishers, and cultural groups, who argue it would severely diminish the value of intellectual property and reduce incentives to create original work.
News Corp has taken a somewhat nuanced approach. In 2024, the company signed a multi-year licensing agreement with OpenAI, reportedly valued at over $250 million. The deal allows OpenAI to train its models on select News Corp content in exchange for attribution and financial compensation. It serves as an example of what ethical data partnerships can look like when content rights are respected. Yet, according to Thomson, the OpenAI arrangement is the exception, not the rule. He believes that too many AI firms operate with a mindset that creative work is freely available, when in fact it is protected by law and represents real economic value.
The concern over unauthorized use of Trump’s books is emblematic of larger anxieties in the publishing world. These works, while politically polarizing, have proven to be enduringly profitable assets for publishers and remain part of an active licensing ecosystem. Whether used in political analysis, academic study, or historical documentation, these books carry cultural and commercial significance that News Corp is determined to protect. The idea that AI models might freely absorb and replicate their content, without credit or compensation, raises red flags about the erosion of authorial and publisher rights.
As the conflict between AI developers and intellectual property holders intensifies, the stage is set for a new era of litigation and regulation. Publishers are increasingly aligning with authors’ guilds, copyright coalitions, and digital rights advocates to push for reforms that ensure creative work is not exploited under the guise of technological advancement. Some experts believe this moment mirrors the early days of the music industry’s battle with digital piracy—a time when legal norms were still catching up to technological disruption.
News Corp’s bold stance could have wide-reaching implications. By putting the spotlight on unauthorized AI use of book content, the company is not only defending its own assets but also helping set a precedent for how intellectual property must be treated in the AI age. Whether through court battles, licensing agreements, or legislative changes, the message from the publishing world is growing louder: AI innovation cannot come at the cost of creative labor. The stakes are no longer theoretical—they are financial, legal, and cultural. And as AI continues to expand into every corner of content creation, the need for accountability and respect for intellectual property has never been more urgent.
