Legal experts offer mixed opinions about how earlier copyright and fair use cases could affect The New York Times' case against OpenAI and Microsoft
A lawsuit accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of violating the New York Times's copyright. But the law is anything but clear.
Washington Post
Context & Ripple Effects
The New York Times' copyright suit against OpenAI and Microsoft made a major publisher the focal point of a dispute over whether AI training can use news archives without permission. Subsequent coverage framed the litigation as either a test of copyright's application to AI or leverage for licensing terms.
The mixed legal assessments underscore that prior fair-use doctrine does not map cleanly onto large-language-model training. That uncertainty matters to both the Times' challenge and the companies' defense of news scraping in later federal-court filings.
First-order effects
OpenAI and Microsoft face an unsettled legal defense to the Times' infringement claims, while the Times must show why prior copyright and fair-use precedents should constrain AI training.
The case immediately raises the stakes for news content used in model development, without establishing a clear legal rule for either training or output use.
Second-order effects
Publishers and AI companies have stronger incentives to pursue licensing arrangements while litigation leaves the governing copyright standard unresolved.
Other AI developers and media owners will watch the arguments closely because a ruling could influence how they assess the legal exposure of using journalistic archives.
Third-order effects
If disputes continue to be resolved unevenly through litigation and private agreements, access to high-quality news archives could become a negotiated commercial input rather than an assumed source of training data.
The case is part of a broader test of whether copyright law can supply a stable framework for generative AI, or whether courts and market licensing will produce a fragmented one.
The trend: Generative-AI companies and publishers are moving toward a contested market for training data, with copyright litigation testing the boundaries of fair use and licensing filling gaps left by legal uncertainty.
Whether training an AI on copyrighted works is fair use is the quintessential AI question. Precedent is on the side of AI companies give the Google Books ruling which said it's legal to scan books for book search without permission from the copyright holders. …
Artists, authors, creators, the NYT et al are suing AI firms for copyright infringement. The suits could shake the foundations of the AI boom and rebalance power between humans and machines. But will they actually win? That will hinge on how courts interpret “fair use” for the…
“Judges so far have been wary of the argument that training an AI model on copyrighted works — the ‘input’ side — amounts to a violation in itself [...] 'I'm going to take the position, based on precedent, that if the outputs aren't infringing, then anything that took place befor…
Copyright law could be AI's achilles heel. But what will it take for the NYT and other plaintiffs to actually win their cases? — We talked to half a dozen IP and tech law experts about the thorny legal doctrine at the heart of the cases — fair use — and how courts might apply …
A lawsuit the New York Times filed against OpenAI and Microsoft in federal court last week has the potential to rattle the foundations of the booming generative AI industry, some legal experts say — but they could also fall flat. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
“It's not learning the facts like a brain would learn facts,” said Danielle Coffey, CEO of @newsalliance. “It's literally spitting the words back out at you.'” https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
Will copyright turn out to be AI's achilles heel? We dove deep into the legal arguments that will decide the industry's future. Story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... w/ @ElaheIzadi [image]