Who Owns Perplexity’s Outputs? Decoding the Terms & Copyright Law

Published: December 26, 2024 • AI, ToU & Privacy

Listen to audio overview

Contents

Introduction

Modern AI writing assistants and search-based large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized how we research and generate new works. One emerging platform in this sphere is Perplexity, a popular AI-driven “answer engine” that produces text-based results and summaries based on user prompts (the “Outputs”).

Yet while this technology is undeniably powerful, many crucial questions persist from a legal and commercial perspective: Who owns these AI-generated Outputs? Can you copyright them or safely use them in published works and commercial products? What do Perplexity’s Terms of Service actually say regarding IP rights over content? And perhaps most critically, how can you, as a creator or user of Perplexity, reduce legal risk while still leveraging the system’s many advantages?

In this article, we delve deeply into Perplexity’s Terms of Service as of June 2024, highlight specific clauses relevant to intellectual property (IP) ownership, and interpret them through the lens of broader copyright law principles. We then explore the human authorship requirement, the threshold of originality, and strategic ways to ensure your Perplexity-based projects are protectable, commercially viable, and less prone to legal pitfalls.

We also address key copyright considerations specific to AI outputs in the United States and internationally, focusing on unsettled legal questions regarding what is considered “human authorship.” You’ll learn how to incorporate and transform Perplexity’s text to bolster your claims to copyright protection, thus allowing you to confidently produce articles, books, or software while reducing the risk of infringement claims.

Finally, we close with tips for ethically and responsibly using generative AI services (like Perplexity) to generate content in an era of rapid legislative and technological change. Whether you’re a blogger seeking fresh ideas, a startup wanting to incorporate Perplexity’s results into your product, or a legal practitioner advising others on these issues, this comprehensive exploration aims to guide you through the complexities of AI authorship and ownership.

Perplexity Terms of Service: Key Provisions on Ownership and Rights

The Structure of Perplexity’s Terms

As with most AI platforms, Perplexity publishes a publicly available Terms of Service (“ToS”) that outlines how users may access and use the service, as well as disclaimers, rights, and obligations. Perplexity’s ToS was last revised on June 4, 2024, and it addresses:

The scope of the Services (the “Perplexity Engine,” the website(s), and mobile applications).
The distinction between “Input” (the user’s content) and “Output” (Perplexity’s AI-generated text).
Certain disclaimers limiting Perplexity’s liability and clarifying that the Outputs may be incomplete or inaccurate.
Licensing arrangements for the user’s content (Your Content) and references to third-party or open source software integrated into Perplexity’s AI stack.

Unlike some other AI tools that overtly state “You own the output,” Perplexity’s ToS does not include an explicit assignment of ownership in the Output to the user. Instead, they disclaim ownership of user Input and set forth a broad license that the user grants to Perplexity to process that Input. But the big question of “Does Perplexity or the user own the Output?” remains more ambiguous, which is typical of many modern AI services.

Perplexity’s Definitions: Input vs. Output

Section 1.1 of the ToS explains:

Input refers to any user-submitted data or prompts. In a typical scenario, you might type a query or upload text or data that you want Perplexity to analyze.
Output is the text (or other content) the system generates in response to that Input.

Crucially, under Perplexity’s definitions, your “Input” becomes part of “Your Content” in the sense that you remain responsible for it. Perplexity obtains a broad license to handle your Input (e.g., to store, process, distribute, and transform it for the Service to function), but they do not claim that they own your Input. This is a fairly standard approach across generative AI platforms.

The License Granted to Perplexity

When you use Perplexity, you give them a robust license to operate on your Input. Section 6.4 clarifies that you grant Perplexity a sub-licensable, global, royalty-free license to reproduce, transmit, display, and otherwise handle your Input so that Perplexity can generate the Output you requested. Although broad, this license is typically limited to the extent necessary to run the AI’s training or inference processes.

Does Perplexity Assign Users the Rights to Output?

In many generative AI Terms of Service, we see a spectrum of approaches:

Some disclaim ownership but do not specify who actually “owns” the Output.
Some (e.g., older ChatGPT policies) expressly assign the Output’s IP rights to the user, subject to disclaimers.
Others have more restrictive license terms, stating users only get a “limited right” to use the AI-generated content for personal or non-commercial activities.

Perplexity’s official text (as of June 2024) does not explicitly convey that you, the user, own the Outputs in full. Nor does it explicitly state that Perplexity retains ownership. Instead, it is silent in a way that suggests a more laissez-faire approach: you can presumably use the Output for your own lawful purposes, but do so at your own risk. The ToS disclaim any liability for potential IP infringement that might occur if the Output inadvertently includes copyrighted material. They also disclaim warranties about the quality, accuracy, or authorship status of the text.

Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Use

Unlike certain AI providers who place strict prohibitions on using raw text for commercial products (e.g., “you may not monetize the output without a separate commercial license”), Perplexity’s ToS do not seem to explicitly forbid commercial usage of the Output. They do caution, however, that:

You must have the legal right to provide the Input.
Perplexity is not responsible if the Output infringes others’ IP.
The user cannot rely on Perplexity for professional or specialized legal or financial advice.

As a result, if you plan to publish or otherwise monetize the raw text that Perplexity’s system generates, you generally can do so. But whether that text is truly “yours” from an IP standpoint is another matter—especially under copyright law’s established principle that “purely machine-generated works lack human authorship.”

The Role of Perplexity’s Disclaimers

Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the ToS disclaim warranties and limit Perplexity’s liability. Notably, they caution that the system may produce erroneous or biased content, and that you should not treat it as professional counsel. In addition, they emphasize that if the Output infringes third parties’ rights, Perplexity is not liable; you must use the content responsibly.

In short, Perplexity is telling its users:

“We won’t claim your Input, but we can use it as needed to run the service. We won’t guarantee that the Output is correct or that you have IP rights in it. The onus is on you to ensure your usage doesn’t infringe others’ IP or break the law.”

This is standard for AI platforms: disclaim potential liability, disclaim ownership of user Input, and remain vague on formal ownership of the outputs. This approach leaves the user to rely on existing copyright law to determine what rights, if any, they have in raw AI text or images.

Copyright Law and AI-Generated Works

The Human Authorship Requirement

One fundamental principle of U.S. copyright law (and many other jurisdictions) is that a human must be the author for the work to be copyright-eligible. The U.S. Copyright Office has explicitly stated that purely AI-generated content, lacking human involvement, does not qualify for copyright registration. This stance was reinforced by policy statements and relevant court cases establishing that only “original works of authorship” created by a human can be protected.

This “human authorship requirement” means that if you just press “generate” in Perplexity, copy-paste the raw text, and claim, “I hold the copyright,” you may be on shaky legal ground. Courts and regulators may say, “No, that output does not meet the modicum of human creativity.” The U.S. Copyright Office, in particular, might deny a registration if it sees that the text was wholly machine-generated.

The Threshold of Originality

For a work to gain copyright protection, it must be “original” in the sense that it (1) was independently created by the author rather than copied, and (2) shows at least a spark of creativity. The bar is not high. But if the text is purely machine output that you neither directed nor improved, it might fail that test under current legal interpretations.

Moreover, the possibility that Perplexity’s system draws from previously copyrighted text is relevant. If the AI’s generative processes replicate protected works in a near-verbatim manner, your final text could be infringing. If the AI has genuinely “transformed” or restructured the text, infringement might be less likely—but this remains an unsettled area, and multiple lawsuits are testing the boundaries of fair use and generative AI training data.

Joint Authorship or Public Domain?

If the content is produced primarily by Perplexity’s algorithms without major human input, you may find that (i) no valid human authorship arises, or (ii) the output is arguably in the “public domain” or akin to an unprotectable idea. Meanwhile, if you meaningfully edit, revise, or shape the final version—injecting unique creative expression—then you can more easily claim copyright in the final integrated work. This is a key point we detail further below.

Moral Rights and AI

In some jurisdictions outside the United States, “moral rights” protect the right of attribution and the right to preserve the integrity of the work. AI complicates these principles: can a system be considered an “author,” or can it hold moral rights? Most legal systems say no: moral rights attach to humans. Nonetheless, if a user modifies the AI’s output, it’s the user’s moral rights that come into play—particularly if they exercise creative control.

Copyright Considerations for AI Outputs

This broad theme breaks down into a few categories that matter to anyone using Perplexity:

Potential infringement of third-party works: The AI might inadvertently replicate protected text from training data or from user-provided prompts.
Eligibility for new copyright: Does the final text meet the human authorship threshold to be considered an “original work”?
Clarity of ownership: Even if the text is novel, do you actually hold the rights or share them with the AI developer?

Below are some deeper considerations for each topic.

Potential Infringement of Third-Party Content

Because large language models are typically trained on vast swathes of online text, there is a risk that the AI might reproduce copyrighted content (e.g., entire passages from a book or article). If that occurs, using the output without permission could put you at risk for infringement claims. Perplexity disclaims responsibility if it inadvertently surfaces copyrighted materials. As the user, you should carefully review any final text for suspiciously verbatim passages, especially if the subject matter seems specialized.

Practical Tip: Always run your Perplexity-generated text through a plagiarism checker or do manual checks for recognizable references, especially if your usage is commercial or wide-scale. If the output matches someone’s copyrighted text, either remove or heavily transform it, or get permission from the rightsholder.

Enhancing Copyright Protection with Human Authorship

To properly claim a copyright in your final project, you need to show that you contributed a modicum of creativity. You can do this by:

Providing a sequence of advanced prompts that shape the style and direction of the output.
Rewriting or editing the raw text significantly.
Integrating it with your own original text, images, or design.

The more you demonstrate your creative decisions, the stronger your argument for copyright ownership of the final integrated work. If Perplexity only provided partial scaffolding or factual elements, and you personally authored the unique expression or arrangement, your copyrighted portion is your own.

Clarity of Ownership vs. Silence in the ToS

Because Perplexity’s Terms of Service do not explicitly state “We assign all rights in the output to you,” we are left to interpret based on standard IP law. Typically, if a system’s output fails to meet the requirement for a human author, it’s not protectable at all. If the user invests enough authorship, that user’s portion is protectable, and the portion that is purely AI might remain in a legal gray zone. That is the default outcome absent explicit contract language to the contrary.

Hence, if you want to publicly commercialize a text or software tool that heavily relies on Perplexity’s output, consider making sure you either:

Document your own creative additions to the text.
Have your attorneys review or disclaim the AI’s part if it’s near the borderline of unoriginal or infringing.
Potentially combine your usage with references or disclaimers acknowledging the role of Perplexity to mitigate confusion regarding authorship.

Human Authorship Requirement

Legal Basis

Both case law and U.S. Copyright Office guidance revolve around the notion that only human authors can create protectable works. This stems from centuries-old legal doctrines about the nature of authorship. In 2023, the Copyright Office reaffirmed this principle in its registration guidelines for works containing AI-generated material. The guidelines specify that purely AI-created content cannot be registered, but partial inclusion of AI text might be allowable if the applicant identifies and describes the human-authored elements.

Implications for Perplexity’s Outputs

No matter how “novel” or “impressive” Perplexity’s text might appear, it lacks a human mind’s final creative spark if a user simply copies it verbatim. Without further human involvement, it’s almost certainly ineligible for full copyright coverage. This is crucial for bloggers, journalists, or marketers who might be tempted to post raw Perplexity content. If you do so, you might have trouble taking down unauthorized reposts, because you may not actually have a protectable interest in the text as “yours.”

Practical Considerations

You can respond to these constraints by approaching AI as a collaborative partner rather than a standalone “author.” Use Perplexity for brainstorming, structuring outlines, or generating base drafts. Then, carefully refine or rewrite those drafts, adding your own narrative voice or arguments. That approach supplies the essential human input needed to claim authorship.

Threshold of Originality

Legal Standard

To be “original” under copyright law, a work must be independently created by a human author and exhibit at least a minimal degree of creativity. Merely stating “The cat sat on the mat” might not be enough, but a more expressive or descriptive sequence can qualify. Because the bar is low, even minor creative flourishes can pass muster—provided a real human came up with them.

However, if an AI engine simply rearranges well-known facts or expressions from public domain text, the result might not meet the originality threshold. And if it inadvertently draws from protected text, or your own input is minimal, the resulting text might fail the test or be infringing.

Considerations for Outputs

If your usage scenario for Perplexity is purely ephemeral or internal—say, pulling reference summaries for quick research—this probably won’t cause major legal tangles. But if you plan to release Perplexity-driven works publicly (e.g., an eBook, marketing copy, academic paper), you must ensure the end product stands on an “originality foundation” contributed by you, not just the system alone.

Practical Implications

Prompts as a Starting Point: Even though carefully crafting prompts can shape the text, current law suggests that prompts alone do not equal authorship. You still need to interpret or transform the output.
Verbatim Reliance: If you post the AI text “as is,” you likely lack a strong claim to it.
Substantial Revision: Any rewriting, editing, or rearranging you do can tip the scales toward genuine authorship.

Strategies to Enhance Copyrightability of Perplexity-Assisted Works

A crucial theme for any user of AI text generation is: How do I make sure I own the final content? Below are recommended approaches that align with the legal frameworks:

Substantial Human Input

The simplest, yet most powerful approach is to supply an in-depth measure of human input throughout your workflow. For instance, if you are writing a blog post:

Draft an outline in your own words.
Use Perplexity to fill out certain factual or structural sections.
Then rewrite or expand the text so it reflects your unique voice, style, and analysis.

This weaving in of your personal authorship ensures the final product stands apart from raw, unprotected machine output.

Creative Prompts

While disclaimers that “prompts alone are not authorship” hold true, you can still harness thoughtful prompting to shape the text’s style, tone, or content. This can help ensure the raw output is more unique, which you then further refine. By investing skill and creativity in formulating prompts, you “guide” the AI in a direction that reflects your personal vision, though that alone may not be enough to claim copyright unless you do more.

Curation and Arrangement

Another route is to generate multiple Perplexity Outputs and curate or arrange them into a cohesive final piece. If your arrangement or selection decisions show creative expression—like the order of sections, transitions, or thematic bridging—this can qualify for copyright protection in the arrangement, even if some or all pieces themselves might be unprotected.

Critical Editing and Transformation

Actively revise the raw text from Perplexity. This includes rewriting sentences, adding your own insights, removing extraneous parts, or reorganizing entire sections. If the final text meaningfully differs from the machine’s initial version, you have infused your creative authorship. This step is key for building a case that you own the final result.

Integration with Original Work

Perplexity-based text can be integrated into a broader project, such as:

Code bases for an app, where you combine AI-suggested text with your own unique logic.
A research paper or book that merges the AI’s factual summaries with your novel arguments or personal experiences.

In such scenarios, your original content remains fully copyrighted. If the combined text is an inseparable part of your final integrated work, you can typically claim copyright in those portions that reflect your original authorship.

Iterative Collaboration and Refinement

Using Perplexity in an iterative fashion can be helpful. You might prompt the system multiple times, compare outputs, pick and choose interesting paragraphs, and then rewrite them. This repeated “human in the loop” approach ensures your final text is not just one raw generation but the outcome of your own judgments and creative processes.

Cross-Medium Adaptation

Another tactic is to transform AI text into a different medium or combine it with images, videos, or layout design. Suppose Perplexity drafts a storyline for a short comic, and you illustrate it. In that scenario, your artwork clearly qualifies for copyright, and you might obtain a separate IP interest in the final illustrated narrative.

Collaborative Human-AI Performances

If you’re producing content in a live or “performance-based” setting—like a spontaneous Q&A or live podcast featuring AI inputs that you respond to in real-time—this dynamic interplay can yield significant human creativity. The final product (for instance, a recorded show) strongly features your authorship in responding, criticizing, or shaping the AI content. That typically meets the threshold of originality, overshadowing the purely AI-generated aspects.

Practical Pointers for Perplexity Users

Fact-Check: Always verify AI-generated text for factual accuracy. Perplexity disclaims correctness, so proceed cautiously for professional or high-stakes content.
Screen for Infringement: Inspect the output for suspiciously familiar or trademarked content. Remove or rewrite as needed.
Document Changes: In a commercial environment, keep logs of how you refined the output. This helps illustrate your creative involvement.
Consider Using Disclaimers: Label content in ways that clarify which portions are AI-generated, or note that the final text includes AI assistance. This can reduce confusion for your readers or potential legal challengers.
Stay Updated: As legal frameworks evolve, remain alert to changes in how AI-based content is regulated or recognized by courts.

AI Content Risks: Navigating Perplexity’s Limitations

Even though we have many strategies to integrate Perplexity’s text responsibly, it’s important to understand the inherent risks:

Defamation: The system might generate statements about real people or companies that are false or defamatory.
Privacy Violations: If a user prompt reveals personal data, the system’s output might inadvertently incorporate it, potentially breaching privacy laws.
Hallucinations: Like other AI models, Perplexity may produce “hallucinated” text (i.e., made-up facts, citations, or quotes). Relying on these can lead to reputational or even legal consequences.
Ethical Dilemmas: Over-reliance on AI outputs in creative industries might erode human artistry or overshadow the contributions of smaller content creators whose works feed AI training data.

Minimizing these issues requires consistent human oversight and a willingness to verify or disclaim any content that might be problematic.

Conclusion

Perplexity’s Terms of Service set the tone for how you can supply Input and receive AI-generated Output, but they provide limited clarity on the precise ownership of that Output. Meanwhile, established copyright law insists that purely machine-generated text lacks protectable authorship. The result is an environment in which your creative expansions, modifications, and integrative use of Perplexity’s text become essential for claiming a valid and enforceable copyright.

Key Takeaways:

Know Perplexity’s stance: They don’t claim your Input but also do not guarantee or transfer IP in the output to you.
Add your creativity: Thoroughly revise or transform the text to achieve a protectable end product.
Check for third-party rights: Because AI might inadvertently replicate copyrighted text.
Document your authorship: Maintaining records of your editorial process can support your copyright claim.

By balancing these legal insights with practical usage strategies, you can harness Perplexity’s capabilities effectively—whether for internal research, creative writing, or commercial publication—while reducing liability and placing your final works on solid legal footing.

FAQ

Below are additional questions from an expert legal perspective, focusing on practical problems that were not specifically addressed in the main text above. These questions go beyond standard “Is AI-owned or not?” discussions, probing deeper into specialized scenarios encountered by Perplexity users.

How can I protect myself if Perplexity unexpectedly reproduces text verbatim from a private contract or NDA-protected document?

When dealing with private or sensitive documents, the risk is that the AI might, through some training or processing quirk, produce text that comes from your confidential sources or from someone else’s. First, it’s critical to understand how you are using Perplexity: are you uploading sensitive documents into the system as Input, or is the model referencing them from training data? If the latter, you cannot fully control whether similar text might appear in the Output for you or other users.

To protect yourself, you should:

Use caution when uploading anything proprietary or subject to NDAs; check if Perplexity can store or share that data.
Review all AI outputs thoroughly before finalizing or disseminating them, especially if the text includes potentially private or confidential segments.
If your NDA or contract is inadvertently reproduced, consider quickly removing or redacting that portion. Also, keep a record of the output and your immediate corrective actions.
Negotiate data handling provisions upfront if you must feed confidential materials into an AI system. Some enterprise AI solutions let you segregate your data or run models in a more secure environment.

Legally, you want to be in a position to demonstrate you took prompt and reasonable measures to maintain confidentiality. If the text does slip out, your documented diligence in removing it or preventing further spread can mitigate potential breach-of-confidentiality claims.

If two people use Perplexity to generate nearly identical outputs, can they both claim copyright in their final works?

In principle, identical or near-identical AI outputs are not very original from a human standpoint. The question is whether either user provided a separate dimension of creativity sufficient for copyright protection. If both simply pressed “generate” and published the same raw text, neither likely holds a valid copyright because the text is purely machine-generated with no distinct human authorship. And if it is not subject to copyright, it could be used by anyone.

However, if each user independently revised or augmented the text in some unique ways, they might each hold a copyright interest in their separate final versions. The underlying AI output that is common to both might remain unprotected. In practice, it can become complicated if the derivative versions are only marginally different. Each user’s best practice is to thoroughly document their writing and editing process to show how their version stands apart from the raw AI text or from other users’ outputs.

Can I rely on Perplexity’s references or citations in the output for legal or academic work without verifying them?

Relying on AI-provided references blindly is risky. Large language models have a known tendency to produce fabricated or “hallucinated” citations. Even if they look legitimate on the surface, you might find they do not actually exist or do not match the content claimed. For academic or legal contexts, inaccurate or false references can lead to ethical issues, reputational harm, or potential liability for negligence.

Best Practices:

Cross-check every citation the AI provides by manually verifying the source.
Never assume the AI’s references are correct. If you cannot locate the source, note that the reference might be spurious.
If you are citing anything critical, consult the original texts.

By diligently verifying references, you uphold professional or academic integrity and reduce the chance of referencing non-existent or misrepresented authorities.

Could using Perplexity outputs about third parties open me to defamation or libel claims?

Yes. If Perplexity produces statements of fact about an identifiable person or entity that are false, negative, or damaging to their reputation, you could face a defamation claim by republishing that content. Because defamation law hinges on untrue statements damaging someone’s reputation, the question is whether you, as the publisher, acted negligently or with reckless disregard for the truth.

You can mitigate defamation risks by:

Fact-checking any statement about real individuals or companies.
Adding disclaimers or clarifications if you are unsure about the AI’s veracity.
Promptly correcting or removing content if it turns out to be false.

Remember, disclaimers alone will not entirely shield you if you knowingly or negligently publish harmful falsehoods. But demonstrating that you took steps to verify or correct the statements can help reduce liability.

How do fair use principles apply if Perplexity outputs large chunks of copyrighted text in my final project?

Fair use is a fact-specific balancing test in U.S. law that evaluates:

Purpose and character of the use (commercial vs. educational, transformative vs. verbatim copying).
Nature of the original work (fiction, factual, published, unpublished).
Amount and substantiality of the portion used.
Effect on the potential market for or value of the original.

If the AI inadvertently provides large verbatim sections of a copyrighted novel or article, you may not easily assert fair use. The copying might be substantial, and if you merely republish it in your project, that is not “transformative.” A safer approach is to either remove or significantly transform the text. If you want to reference it, consider quoting smaller excerpts or summarizing, or citing in a truly transformative manner (like commentary or criticism). Without these protective factors, relying on fair use to cover raw, large-scale AI copying is risky.

Am I safe to use Perplexity’s “public domain” or “open source” references in commercial products?

Even if Perplexity says a snippet is from the public domain or from open source materials, you should still verify the licensing. “Open source” can have conditions (e.g., attribution, copyleft) that you must respect, and not all open source licenses are permissive for every commercial scenario. If something truly is in the public domain, it should be free of copyright constraints—but ensure the text is genuinely in the public domain, not merely claimed as such by the AI. Again, verifying sources is key. If you do confirm the text is from a valid public domain or appropriately licensed open source repository, you can typically use it in your product with the correct license notices (if required by the license terms).

Could someone else trademark an AI-generated brand name or slogan I produced via Perplexity?

Trademarks protect source identifiers (names, phrases, logos) used in commerce to distinguish goods or services. If you use Perplexity to brainstorm a brand name and begin using it commercially, you generally can apply for a trademark so long as it is distinctive and not already in use. However, if an AI user on another side of the world independently arrives at a similar or identical brand name, or if the mark is generic or descriptive, you might find it more challenging to secure trademark rights. Also, you cannot trademark purely descriptive or generic terms, even if the AI suggests them, so be mindful of the distinctiveness requirements in trademark law. A search for prior uses is always prudent.

Does publishing disclaimers about “AI involvement” reduce any legal exposures?

Posting disclaimers such as “Portions of this text were generated by an AI and may be inaccurate” can help with transparency. It potentially mitigates claims of consumer deception or false advertising, especially if you are presenting the text as factual. Disclaimers might also help limit defamation or negligence claims if you show that you cautioned readers that the content could be incomplete or wrong. However, disclaimers do not completely absolve you from liability if you knowingly publish infringing or defamatory content. They are a helpful but partial step. The core responsibility remains verifying crucial statements and removing wrongful materials.

How can I be sure I’m not violating data protection laws when inputting personal data into Perplexity?

If you handle personal data subject to regulations like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), inputting that data into an AI system triggers obligations around notice, consent, data minimization, and so on. You must ensure that:

You have a lawful basis (e.g., consent or legitimate interest) for processing the data through Perplexity.
You do not exceed the scope of the data subject’s consent.
You comply with any data subject rights to erasure or access if they request it.

Because Perplexity is a third party, you may need a data processing agreement or to verify that Perplexity’s data handling meets the relevant jurisdiction’s privacy standards. Remember, you remain ultimately responsible for your own compliance. If in doubt, anonymize or remove personal identifiers before inputting the data.

What if I integrate Perplexity into a web application that automatically displays AI-generated content to my users?

If your platform automatically fetches Perplexity outputs in real-time and displays them to end users, you should carefully structure your terms of service and disclaimers to alert users that this content is AI-generated. Consider implementing content moderation or filters to catch potential infringing or harmful outputs. Legally, you might be viewed as a publisher or republisher, which could impose liability if you fail to address known infringing content or repeated wrongful statements. Setting up a robust moderation pipeline and user reporting mechanism is recommended, so you can remove or correct problematic AI-generated text promptly. This approach can also demonstrate “good faith” and reduce potential platform liability.