TL;DR
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
OpenAI published excerpts from legal briefs filed by organizations and individuals supporting fair use in its copyright dispute with The New York Times. The filings argue that AI training is transformative and that competition from new works is not, by itself, copyright market harm; the court’s decision remains pending.
OpenAI has published excerpts from court filings by organizations and individuals supporting fair use in the company’s copyright dispute with The New York Times. The submissions argue that training AI models on copyrighted works can be lawful and that restricting the practice could affect researchers, people with disabilities, startups and other users of AI; they are arguments to the court, not a ruling on the case.
The excerpts come from briefs submitted in support of fair use, a doctrine in U.S. copyright law that permits certain uses of copyrighted material without permission. OpenAI says the full filings are available on the public court docket. The company presents them as perspectives from groups and experts across fields, rather than as a decision by the court.
Among the signatories and supporters cited are the American Council of the Blind, the Association of Research Libraries, the American Library Association, the Consumer Technology Association and the Business Software Alliance. Their brief argues the case reaches beyond AI developers, with potential consequences for medical research, education, accessibility, agriculture, software and independent creators. It says many people and organizations rely on tools built by others, including open-source AI systems.
Other submissions contest the idea that competition from AI-generated material is itself legally recognizable market harm. Authors Alliance argues copyright protects against substitution for protected expression, not every loss of sales or attention caused by competing works. The Engine and Developers Alliance, meanwhile, says foundation models are general-purpose tools and that training them is not intended to reproduce the works in their datasets.
Who Could Be Affected by the Ruling
The case could shape the rules for building and using generative AI in the United States. If the court accepts the arguments in these briefs, AI developers could have more room to train models using copyrighted material without obtaining a license for every work. That could affect not only large technology companies but also startups, researchers, libraries and people who use AI tools.
The arguments also address how copyright law should treat competition. Authors and publishers may lose sales or audience to new works, but the briefs say that such competition does not automatically amount to legally actionable harm when the new work does not substitute for the original’s protected expression. That distinction matters to both copyright holders seeking to protect their work and developers arguing that learning from existing material is necessary to create new tools.
These are positions advanced by parties supporting OpenAI’s side, not established conclusions. The outcome will depend on the court’s application of copyright law to the evidence and arguments in the case.
Products Worth Considering
Bose TV Speaker Compact Soundbar with Bluetooth and HDMI-ARC, Black
Sonos Era 100 SL Compact, Microphone-Free Speaker – Black
Logitech MX Keys S Wireless Keyboard, Graphite
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Dispute Over Training Data
The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that their use of Times material in AI systems infringes copyright. OpenAI’s post frames the dispute as part of a broader question: whether using copyrighted works to train generative models falls within fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. The source material does not provide the case’s full procedural history or a date for the briefs.
The filings cited by OpenAI focus on several fair-use questions, including the purpose of model training and its effects on the market for copyrighted works. Supporters say training creates tools for different uses rather than providing users with substitute access to the original works. They also argue that copyright should not bar new expression simply because it competes for an audience. The Times’ claims and the defendants’ responses are disputed, and the court has not resolved them in the material provided.
OpenAI also points to arguments about public benefits, including advances in scientific analysis and new creative capabilities. Those are claims made in the submissions. The excerpts do not establish that any particular benefit outweighs possible harms to writers or publishers.
“Fair use supports their ability to learn, discover, communicate, and create.”
— American Council of the Blind, Association of Research Libraries, American Library Association, Consumer Technology Association and Business Software Alliance
The Court Has Not Ruled
No court decision is described in OpenAI’s post. The excerpts represent arguments by supporters of fair use, not findings that AI training is lawful or that the Times has not suffered market harm. The source also does not specify the exact filing dates, the full set of claims and defenses, or when the court may rule.
The likely effects of a decision are also unsettled. The briefs describe possible benefits and risks, but the material does not quantify the impact on authors’ income, licensing markets, access to AI tools or research outcomes. Whether training practices differ across models or datasets may also matter to how the legal issues are assessed.
The Case Moves Through Court
The immediate next step is for the court to consider the parties’ arguments and the supporting briefs filed by outside groups and individuals. The public docket contains the full submissions, according to OpenAI, and may provide further detail on their legal reasoning and the case schedule.
Until the court issues a decision or the parties reach another resolution, the central questions remain contested: whether the specific training uses qualify as fair use and how alleged effects on the market should be evaluated. Any ruling could clarify the legal landscape for AI training, though its reach would depend on the court’s reasoning and the facts before it.
Key Questions
What is the news about fair use?
OpenAI published excerpts from briefs filed in its copyright dispute with The New York Times. The submissions support the view that fair use can cover AI training on copyrighted works.
Has a court ruled that AI training is fair use?
No such ruling is reported in the source material. The excerpts are arguments from organizations and individuals supporting fair use, not a court’s decision.
Who says the case could affect people beyond AI companies?
A coalition including the American Council of the Blind, library associations, the Consumer Technology Association and the Business Software Alliance says the case could affect users in areas such as research, education, accessibility and software.
What do the briefs say about competition from AI-generated works?
Authors Alliance argues that competition or reduced sales alone should not count as copyright market harm when a new work does not substitute for the original’s protected expression. That is an argument for the court to consider, not a settled legal outcome in this case.
Source: openai.com
