The New York Times has filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging mass copyright infringement of its journalism to train AI systems like ChatGPT—a case that could reshape how generative AI models are developed.
The New York Times Company has initiated a high-stakes legal battle against OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing the tech giants of systematically copying and using millions of its copyrighted articles to train artificial intelligence models without permission or compensation. Filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, the lawsuit represents the most significant legal challenge to date regarding the data sources powering generative AI systems.
At the core of the dispute is the Times' assertion that OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft's Copilot reproduce Times content verbatim—including investigative reports, opinion pieces, and reviews—while bypassing subscription barriers. The complaint includes examples where ChatGPT generated near-identical excerpts from articles like "The Snow Fall" (a Pulitzer-winning multimedia feature) and restaurant reviews from Wirecutter. This allegedly undermines the Times' subscription revenue and affiliate marketing business while creating direct competitors to its journalistic output.
The lawsuit contends that OpenAI's data scraping practices violate copyright law on three fronts: unauthorized copying for training, creating derivative works that compete with the original content, and reproducing protected material without attribution. Microsoft is implicated through its substantial investment in OpenAI and integration of these models into its products. Legal experts note this case could establish critical precedents around whether AI training qualifies as "fair use" under copyright law—a defense other AI companies have invoked.
Beyond financial damages, the Times seeks court orders to destroy all AI models trained on its content and block OpenAI and Microsoft from further unauthorized use. The outcome could force AI developers to implement new approaches: licensing content (as OpenAI has begun doing with publishers like Axel Springer), building curated training datasets, or developing attribution systems. Meanwhile, journalism organizations worldwide are watching closely, as the verdict may determine whether AI companies must compensate publishers for the value derived from their reporting.
This legal clash highlights the tension between rapid AI advancement and content creators' rights. While OpenAI argues its models transform copyrighted material into new outputs, the Times maintains that using proprietary journalism to build commercial AI products without permission constitutes systematic theft. The case could accelerate industry-wide standards for ethical AI training—potentially requiring transparency about data sources and revenue-sharing models. As generative AI reshapes information ecosystems, this lawsuit may redefine how technology companies interact with the journalistic institutions whose work underpins their systems.
Relevant resources:
Comments
Please log in or register to join the discussion