In the fast-changing world of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law, the lawsuit between The New York Times (NYT) and OpenAI, plus its partner Microsoft, remains crucial. Filed in December 2023, this major dispute claims OpenAI and Microsoft infringed copyrights. They allegedly used millions of NYT articles without permission to train AI models like ChatGPT. As of July 2025, the case moves forward. Recent rulings let key claims continue. Additionally, new fights over data storage have started.
Background of the NYT v OpenAI Lawsuit
The lawsuit focuses on using copyrighted material for AI training. The NYT says OpenAI and Microsoft copied vast amounts of its content. They did this to build generative AI tools. These tools can output near-exact copies of NYT articles. Therefore, the NYT argues this breaks copyright laws. It also hurts journalism by skipping paywalls and cutting traffic to original sites. The complaint shows examples where ChatGPT mimics NYT stories closely. This could lead to money loss and harm from AI errors, called hallucinations.
However, OpenAI and Microsoft defend their actions. They claim it fits under fair use. They say the training is transformative and not for profit. It focuses on learning patterns, not copying directly. They note that AI creates new content. Rare cases of copying are being fixed with tech updates. Before the suit, talks about licensing deals failed. This led to the filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
This case mirrors wider debates in AI ethics and law. For instance, it resembles the Tremblay et al. v. OpenAI suit. There, authors like Sarah Silverman challenged AI training on copyrighted books. In that case, partial dismissals in early 2024 stressed proving specific harms. Thus, it sets a guide for fair copyright rules in AI work.
Key Arguments from Both Sides
The NYT’s main point is direct infringement. OpenAI’s models store and copy protected works. This lets users get content without paying. They also claim contributory infringement. AI tools help users break laws. Moreover, they allege breaches of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This involves removing copyright info. Unfair competition under common law is another issue.
On the other side, defendants say training on public data is fair use. It is like how search engines index the web. OpenAI accuses the NYT of tweaking prompts to get copied outputs. This exaggerates the problem. Microsoft denies blame as an investor. It claims no direct control over data.
These points show conflicts between innovation and IP rights. As a result, they affect how AI firms get data in the future.
Recent Court Rulings and Motions in 2025
2025 brings big steps in the case. On March 26, 2025, Judge Sidney Stein rejected most of OpenAI’s dismissal motion. This lets the NYT’s main copyright claims go ahead. The judge pointed to “many” examples of ChatGPT copying NYT articles. He found them enough to continue. This ruling dropped some side claims, like unfair competition. But it kept direct and contributory infringement, plus DMCA breaches.
Then, on April 4, 2025, Judge Stein gave a full opinion. He rejected OpenAI’s time limit defense for old data. He also confirmed the NYT showed possible harm. On April 29, 2025, OpenAI and Microsoft answered the amended complaint. They denied the claims.
Additionally, the case joined others on April 3, 2025. This streamlines things in New York court. Another join happened around June 9, 2025. It shows more AI copyright fights growing.
The Data Preservation Dispute: A New Frontier
A heated issue popped up in May 2025. The court ordered OpenAI to keep all ChatGPT user data forever. This includes deleted chats for discovery needs. The order covers free, Plus, Pro, Team, and some API users. But it skips Enterprise and Edu versions with no-retention deals.
OpenAI appealed on June 6, 2025. They argue it breaks user privacy rules and sets bad examples. In a June 5, 2025 blog post, OpenAI explained their fight. They say endless keeping clashes with 30-day delete norms and GDPR rules. CEO Sam Altman stressed user trust. He promised to fight data access demands. The appeal is still open. Thus, it adds privacy worries to the copyright battle.
Implications for AI and Copyright Law
This lawsuit may change AI growth. It could push firms to license data or limit sources. For law firms helping tech clients, it highlights scraping risks. Recent deals, like OpenAI’s with publishers, hint at paid use. However, cases like this may define fair use limits.
Meanwhile, AI enters schools and work. For example, OpenAI and Microsoft’s July 2025 plan funds teacher AI training. So, clear laws are vital.
Conclusion: Watching the Horizon
The NYT v OpenAI lawsuit shows the fight between tech progress and creators’ rights. With claims advancing and privacy issues rising, 2025 holds more changes. AI businesses should get legal advice to cut risks. Keep watching for settlements or appeals. These could shape global IP rules.
