এই পৃষ্ঠায়4 মিনিট পড়া
ওভারভিউ
OpenAI is a copyright lawsuit filed in December 2023 in which the Times accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of copying millions of its articles without permission to train ChatGPT and related models, and of producing outputs that compete with its journalism. The defendants argue that training is fair use. The case matters because its outcome could shape whether AI companies must license news content and how publishers are paid in an AI-driven information market.
গভীর ডুব
The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in federal court in Manhattan on December 27, 2023. Microsoft is a defendant because it invested heavily in OpenAI and provides the computing infrastructure, and it offers the models through products like Copilot. The Times makes several claims. It says copying its articles into training data is infringement. It says model outputs sometimes reproduce its articles nearly word for word. It says browsing and retrieval features summarize its reporting and substitute for its site. It also brings claims about removing copyright management information and about trademark harm when chatbots attribute invented statements to the Times. The complaint seeks damages and asks that models and datasets built with its work be destroyed. The regurgitation evidence got the most attention. The Times showed about a hundred examples of GPT-4 reproducing long stretches of articles. OpenAI responded that these came from unusual, repeated prompting designed to force copying, that regurgitation is a rare bug it works to fix, and that training on public text is fair use because it is transformative. In 2025, Judge Sidney Stein allowed the core infringement claims to proceed while narrowing others. The case was consolidated with other news and author suits against OpenAI in the Southern District of New York. Discovery became contentious. A magistrate judge ordered OpenAI to preserve ChatGPT output logs, including deleted conversations, and OpenAI objected publicly on privacy grounds. That obligation was later narrowed, and the parties fought over how many de-identified logs OpenAI must produce. A common misconception is that the case has decided whether AI training is legal. As of its latest stages it has not reached a final ruling on fair use.
কৌশলগত প্রভাব
ঝুঁকি এবং নিরাপত্তা
বিপর্যয়কর এবং দৈনন্দিন এআই ক্ষতি উভয়ই নির্ভর করে কে ঝুঁকি বুঝতে পারে এবং কে কাজ করতে পারে।
সুস্পষ্ট সিদ্ধান্ত
জনসাধারণের এবং পেশাদার সাক্ষরতা গঠন করে যে শক্তিশালী নিরাপত্তা নীতি রাজনৈতিকভাবে সম্ভব কিনা।
হাইপের মাধ্যমে কাটা
স্পষ্ট ব্যাখ্যা হাইপ, ল্যাব পিআর, এবং অস্পষ্ট নীতিশাস্ত্র থিয়েটার দ্বারা ক্যাপচার হ্রাস করে।
The Future of New York Times v. OpenAI Lawsuit Explained
The case could run for years through summary judgment, possible trial and appeals, and a settlement is always possible. Rulings in other AI copyright cases on fair use and market harm will likely influence how Judge Stein analyzes the Times's claims. Meanwhile, licensing deals between AI companies and publishers continue to grow, which strengthens arguments that a market for training licenses exists. The case may also shape norms for retaining and handling user chat data during litigation. Publishers and AI developers alike should watch how the court treats retrieval features, which may matter more to news businesses than training.
বাস্তব-বিশ্ব বাস্তবায়ন
The Times's complaint included exhibits in which GPT-4, given the opening of a Times article, continued with long passages nearly identical to the original.
A reader asks a chatbot with browsing to summarize a paywalled investigation, which is the kind of retrieval-based output the Times argues substitutes for visiting its site.
A ChatGPT user learns that a court preservation order required OpenAI to retain output logs, including chats users had deleted, because of discovery in this case.
A regional newspaper group weighs whether to sue or sign a licensing deal with an AI company, watching this case as the leading test of news publishers' claims.
ঝুঁকি এবং প্রহরী
সক্ষমতা যৌগিক অবস্থায় অস্তিত্বগত ঝুঁকিকে সাই-ফাই হিসাবে বিবেচনা করা।
উচ্চ স্বায়ত্তশাসনের অধীনে প্রান্তিককরণের সাথে বিভ্রান্তিকর পৃষ্ঠ পণ্য নিরাপত্তা।
অ-ইংরেজি এবং অ-বিশেষজ্ঞ শ্রোতাদের শুধুমাত্র নিম্ন-মানের উত্স সহ ত্যাগ করা।
বাস্তবায়ন রোডম্যাপ
পৃথক পণ্য ক্ষতি, অপব্যবহার, এবং ক্ষতি-অব-নিয়ন্ত্রণ/বিভ্রান্তির ঝুঁকি।
জিজ্ঞাসা করুন কি প্রমাণ সময়সীমা এবং তীব্রতা আপনার দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি পরিবর্তন করবে.
বিপণন দাবির চেয়ে প্রাথমিক উত্স এবং কংক্রিট ইভাল পছন্দ করুন।
একটি কর্ম পথ চিহ্নিত করুন: কর্মজীবন, নীতি, অর্থায়ন, বা দক্ষতা - শুধুমাত্র সচেতনতা নয়।
অন্বেষণ চালিয়ে যান
Free newsletter
Get the daily AI briefing
Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Take the New York Times v. OpenAI Lawsuit Explained quiz
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
প্রায়শই জিজ্ঞাসিত প্রশ্নাবলী
What is New York Times v. OpenAI Lawsuit Explained?
New York Times v. OpenAI is a copyright lawsuit filed in December 2023 in which the Times accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of copying millions of its articles without permission to train ChatGPT and related models, and of producing outputs that compete with its journalism. The defendants argue that training is fair use. The case matters because its outcome could shape whether AI companies must license news content and how publishers are paid in an AI-driven information market.
When and where was the New York Times lawsuit against OpenAI filed?
The Times filed on December 27, 2023, in federal court in Manhattan, the Southern District of New York.
Why is Microsoft a defendant alongside OpenAI?
The complaint names Microsoft because of its investment, its infrastructure role and its products built on OpenAI models.
What is 'regurgitation' in this case?
The Times showed examples of GPT-4 continuing article openings with near-verbatim text, which links training to infringing output.
How did OpenAI characterize the regurgitation examples?
OpenAI argued the examples came from prompts designed to force copying and that regurgitation is a rare bug it works to fix.
What did a preservation order in this case require OpenAI to keep?
A magistrate judge ordered retention of output logs, including deleted chats, which OpenAI objected to on privacy grounds. The order was later narrowed.
শিখতে থাকুন
সম্পর্কিত গাইড
এই বিষয়ের জন্য বাছাই করা আরও গাইড