U.S. government sides with OpenAI, argues AI training on copyrighted works is fair use
The Trump administration filed a legal brief in the Southern District of New York supporting OpenAI in a copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times. The Department of Justice argues that training large language models on copyrighted material qualifies as fair use, warning that restricting AI training would hinder American prosperity and slow scientific progress. The Seattle Times and Newsday separately sued OpenAI and Microsoft over similar allegations.
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.
- Current automated evidence projection
Cross-source coverage
Common ground
- Both sides agree that power asymmetry between big tech companies and individual creators is a real problem.
- Both acknowledge that the current situation has no perfect solution and involves trade-offs.
- Both recognize that the debate is about more than just copyright law—it's about who controls knowledge and innovation.
- Both agree that small developers and independent creators could be left out under either a licensing or fair use system.
Points of contention
- Western Agent argues AI training on news content is parasitic and replaces journalism, while Neutral Agent says it's transformative and complementary.
- Western Agent believes licensing would force big tech to pay creators, while Neutral Agent says it would entrench big publishers and hurt small ones.
- Western Agent says the Google Books case doesn't apply because AI directly competes with news, while Neutral Agent says the legal precedent allows market harm if the use is transformative.
- Western Agent sees the DOJ's position as a giveaway to monopolists, while Neutral Agent sees it as industrial policy to keep the U.S. ahead in AI.
Blind spots
- Neither side fully addressed the data quality issue—most news articles are rewrites of wire services and public documents, not original reporting.
- Both overlooked how AI could actually help smaller creators by making their work more discoverable, not just replacing it.
- Neither discussed the role of government funding or public data sets as a middle ground between licensing and free-for-all.
WorldAttention’s read
This debate shows there's no easy answer. The DOJ's position is legally sound under fair use, but it risks letting a few giant tech companies profit off everyone's work without paying. On the other hand, forcing licensing could lock up knowledge and only help the biggest publishers, leaving small creators out. Both sides agree power is too concentrated, but they disagree on how to fix it. The real blind spot is that nobody talked about what the training data actually is—mostly recycled public information—or how to fairly reward the real value of curation and fact-checking. In the end, this isn't just a legal fight; it's a choice about whether we treat public knowledge as something everyone can learn from or as private property that only the wealthy can use.
Wire timeline
Seattle Times and Newsday sue OpenAI and Microsoft over use of articles in AI training
The Seattle Times and Newsday have filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that the companies used their copyrighted news articles without permission to train artificial intelligence models. The legal action highlights growing tensions between content creators and AI developers over the unauthorized use of published material to build and improve large language models. The plaintiffs seek to protect their intellectual property and demand compensation for the alleged infringement. This case adds to a series of similar lawsuits from authors, artists, and publishers challenging the data sourcing practices of major AI firms.
DOJ Says Barring AI Training on Copyrighted Material Could 'Severely Hamper' Tech Progress
The U.S. Department of Justice has intervened in the consolidated copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, arguing that training AI models on copyrighted material is not inherently a violation of copyright law. In a statement of interest filed on Tuesday, the DOJ contends that such use should be considered 'fair use' under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, warning that a ruling against the AI companies could 'severely hamper the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' The New York Times, which sued OpenAI in 2023, rejects this argument, claiming the AI models compete with and substitute for its content without payment. Legal experts quoted in the article, including Tori Noble of the EFF and Satya Marar of the Mercatus Center, support the DOJ's position, stating that training is likely transformative. The district court's decision could have major implications for the AI industry, potentially raising costs for developers and impeding innovation.
U.S. Justice Department backs OpenAI, says AI training on copyrighted works is fair use
The U.S. Department of Justice has publicly stated its support for OpenAI, arguing that training large language models on copyrighted works qualifies as protected 'fair use' under U.S. copyright law. This position, reported via an X post from unusual_whales, signals a significant legal and policy stance from the federal government regarding the use of copyrighted material in artificial intelligence development. The statement could influence ongoing and future litigation and regulatory debates over the boundaries of copyright in the context of AI training data. The DOJ's interpretation aligns with OpenAI's defense in various lawsuits, potentially setting a precedent for how copyright law applies to machine learning. The announcement underscores the growing intersection of AI innovation and intellectual property law, with implications for content creators, tech companies, and legal frameworks.
Show 2 older updatesHide older updates
U.S. government sides with OpenAI in New York Times lawsuit over AI training
The American government has formally sided with OpenAI in the ongoing copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times. The case centers on whether training artificial intelligence models on copyrighted news articles constitutes fair use. The government's position supports OpenAI's argument that using protected content for AI training is permissible, marking a significant development in the legal battle over AI and intellectual property. This intervention could set a precedent for how AI companies utilize copyrighted material for model training.
Trump Administration Sides With OpenAI in Copyright Lawsuit, Citing American Prosperity
The Trump administration has filed a 20-page legal brief in the Southern District of New York, siding with OpenAI in its ongoing copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times. The brief argues that training large language models (LLMs) on copyrighted material without licenses should qualify as fair use under U.S. law. The government warns that restricting AI training would hinder American prosperity, slow scientific and creative progress, and make the market less competitive by allowing only the largest companies to afford licensing fees. The filing addresses one of the most significant unresolved legal questions for the AI industry: whether companies can use copyrighted works to train systems like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini without permission. The brief concludes that imposing broad copyright liability on AI training would be legally incorrect and contrary to the constitutional objective of copyright to promote creative progress. The article also notes a separate $1.5 billion settlement between Anthropic and authors over similar copyright infringement allegations.