OpenAI gathers allies for Supreme Court copyright battle with New York Times

The core legal battle

OpenAI is currently facing a high-stakes copyright lawsuit from The New York Times regarding the training of its language models. The newspaper alleges that the company copied its articles into training data and that the resulting AI now competes with the paper as a source of news. As news.lavx.hu reported, OpenAI is now rallying a wide range of supporters to argue that these practices fall under the legal doctrine of fair use.

Fair use is a legal principle that allows the use of copyrighted material without permission under specific circumstances, such as for education or news reporting. The core of the dispute rests on whether training an AI model is a transformative act or a violation of intellectual property. OpenAI argues that the model learns from data to create something entirely new rather than simply redistributing the original content.

The company recently published a roundup of amicus briefs to show that this issue impacts more than just tech corporations. These filings represent a coordinated effort to frame the case as a test of whether copyright laws will continue to allow for technological progress. The goal is to establish that using copyrighted works to build general-purpose tools does not constitute the kind of market harm the Copyright Act was designed to prevent.

Arguments for transformation

Several legal and academic experts have weighed in to support the idea that AI training is a highly transformative use of data. Matthew Sag, a law professor at Emory University, argued in a brief that the outputs of AI models bear no relevant similarity to the intermediate copies made during the training process. This distinction is vital because it suggests the AI is learning patterns rather than copying specific expressions.

Supporters also argue that the purpose of AI training is fundamentally different from the purpose of the original works. For example, a medical researcher or an educator might use an AI to study broad collections of knowledge to achieve a breakthrough. These users rely on the ability to synthesize information across many sources, which the AI facilitates without providing a substitute for the original articles.

The coalition of supporters emphasizes that copyright is intended to promote creativity and progress, not to suppress innovation. They argue that the New York Times' position would set a precedent that could stifle the development of new tools. By focusing on the transformative nature of the technology, these groups hope to protect the ability of developers to build systems that learn from the world's existing information.

Impact on creators and economy

The dispute also features personal testimony from independent creators who claim that AI tools are necessary for their survival. Sarah Rose Siskind, a comedian and writer, stated she does not think she could run her business without AI at this point. Similarly, musician Michael Wall noted that his music business could not survive in its current form without these tools for administrative work and idea development.

These creators suggest that AI helps level the playing field between independent publishers and mainstream media giants. They argue that the technology allows smaller entities to compete by handling tasks like client outreach and content organization. This perspective suggests that the benefits of AI are not just for the large companies, but for the individual workers who use them to sustain their livelihoods.

From an economic standpoint, some experts warn that treating every displaced sale as a copyright violation could weaken the incentives to build new tools. Economist Joshua Gans suggested that if every sale of a product is considered actionable, it could hinder the development of technologies that learn from content. The argument here is that the law should protect the incentive to create while still allowing for the creation of useful, new technologies.

Government and national interests

The United States government has officially entered the fray by filing its own brief in support of the fair use argument. The government stated that the New York Times' position would 'severely hamper the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' This framing moves the conversation from a private dispute to a matter of national security and economic prosperity.

The government highlighted that many publications, including startup media, are already using large language models for journalistic purposes. They noted that these models are currently helping researchers achieve breakthroughs across various fields. By supporting fair use, the government aims to ensure that American prosperity and economic mobility are not hindered by overly restrictive copyright interpretations.

Furthermore, groups like Public Knowledge argue that fair use has a long history of protecting public benefits, such as image search and accessible digital books. They contend that fair use will be equally beneficial in ensuring that AI's benefits accrue to the public at large. The concern is that if the court rules against OpenAI, the benefits of AI might be controlled by a privileged few instead of being accessible to everyone.

What happens next

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear the case against The New York Times. If it does, the ruling will set the standard for how every major AI lab operates. It will determine whether these companies can continue to train on copyrighted material without having to sign licensing agreements with every content owner.

The outcome will significantly shape the economics of the AI industry. If the court rules against fair use, licensing deals—like the ones OpenAI has already struck with News Corp and Axel Springer—could become mandatory. This would likely raise the costs for AI companies and potentially limit which companies have the financial resources to train large-scale models.

Ultimately, the decision will balance the rights of content creators with the goals of technological innovation. As Kevin Kelly noted, without room for transformative technologies, copyright could stifle the very creativity and spread of knowledge it was meant to encourage. The court's decision will determine if AI becomes a tool for broad public progress or a restricted technology governed by strict licensing fees.