U.S. DOJ backs OpenAI, argues AI training on copyrighted text is fair use in New York Times lawsuit
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the OpenAI copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times, arguing that training large language models on copyrighted texts should generally qualify as fair use. The DOJ called the training "extraordinarily transformative" and warned that imposing broad licensing requirements could harm U.S. competitiveness and national security. The advisory brief is not binding on the court, leaving data acquisition and specific outputs to be decided case by case.
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Reports are grouped by semantic similarity and deterministic rules. Language models may assist titles, summaries, translation and cross-source analysis; the page itself is projected from evidence records.
- Source updates only; analysis pending
Analysis pending
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
DOJ sides with OpenAI in copyright battle, warns against restricting AI training
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally sided with OpenAI in its ongoing copyright dispute with publishers. In a legal filing, the DOJ argued that restricting the use of copyrighted material for training artificial intelligence models could hinder creative and scientific progress. This intervention marks a significant development in the broader debate over AI training data and intellectual property law. The DOJ's position supports OpenAI's defense that using publicly available copyrighted works for AI training constitutes fair use, a stance that publishers have challenged in court. The case has implications for the future of AI development and the rights of content creators.
US DOJ: Limiting OpenAI's model training would hinder American prosperity
The US Department of Justice has argued that restricting OpenAI's ability to train its artificial intelligence models using millions of articles would negatively impact American prosperity and economic mobility. This statement, shared via a post on X, outlines the DOJ's position in a legal or policy context concerning the use of copyrighted or published materials for AI training. The claim suggests that the government views broad access to training data as essential for maintaining the United States' competitive edge in AI development and the broader economic benefits derived from it. The post does not specify the exact legal case or proceeding in which this argument was made, but it signals a significant stance by the federal government in the ongoing debate between AI developers and content creators over intellectual property rights and fair use.
Trump administration files brief backing OpenAI, argues LLM training on copyrighted text is fair use
The Trump administration has filed a legal brief supporting OpenAI in its copyright dispute with The New York Times, arguing that training large language models (LLMs) on copyrighted text should generally be considered fair use because the training process is 'extraordinarily transformative.' The brief states that the United States has a strong interest in rejecting any argument that training LLMs on copyrighted texts violates copyright law. The government explicitly ties this position to scientific progress, economic growth, and national security, warning that constraining model training under a wrong interpretation of fair use would hurt US competitiveness. While the brief acknowledges that artists need some protection, it represents the clearest indication yet that the federal government wants precedent to allow AI companies to train on copyrighted material without treating each example as a traditional licensed use.
Show 3 older updatesHide older updates
Trump administration backs OpenAI's fair-use argument in copyright fight with New York Times
The Trump administration has formally filed a legal document supporting OpenAI's core fair-use argument in its copyright dispute with The New York Times. The filing includes several conclusive statements asserting that training AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws. It argues that using copyrighted texts to train large language models (LLMs) is 'transformative—spectacularly so' and that the fourth fair-use factor supports OpenAI's position. The administration warns that narrowing fair-use doctrine would hamper 'the Progress of Science and useful Arts' and threaten national security by giving a competitive advantage to foreign adversaries. The document explicitly rejects the New York Times' attempt to exclude LLM training from fair-use protections, stating that imposing broad copyright liability rendering AI model training impermissible without licensing would be 'problematic—and legally incorrect.'
US DOJ Argues AI Training on Copyrighted Text Is Fair Use in OpenAI Lawsuit
The U.S. Department of Justice filed an advisory brief in the copyright lawsuit between OpenAI and The New York Times, arguing that training large language models on copyrighted text should generally be considered fair use. The DOJ stated that model training is 'extraordinarily transformative' and warned on national security grounds that imposing full licensing requirements would weaken the competitiveness of U.S. AI developers. The brief is not binding on the court, leaving the method of data acquisition and whether specific outputs reproduce protected passages as separate issues to be decided on a case-by-case basis. This development marks a significant legal pressure shift from the training phase to data acquisition and specific outputs, potentially influencing the broader debate on AI and copyright law.
U.S. Justice Department backs OpenAI's fair use claim in New York Times copyright lawsuit
The U.S. Department of Justice has formally intervened in the copyright lawsuit between OpenAI and The New York Times, filing a statement of interest that argues training large language models on copyrighted texts should generally qualify as fair use. This marks Washington's first formal intervention in the wave of AI training copyright lawsuits, though the filing is advisory and not binding on the court. The DOJ's argument distinguishes between acquiring material, training on it, and generating outputs, focusing specifically on the training stage. It contends that training serves a different purpose from publishing an article, as an LLM uses text to learn statistical relationships and generate new responses. Regarding market harm, the DOJ states that training itself does not substitute for the original work, and later AI-generated competition should not retroactively make the training unlawful. The administration also warned that blanket licensing requirements could disadvantage smaller AI companies and U.S. developers against foreign competitors. The court must still decide fair use on a case-by-case basis.