Que s'est-il passé
The New York Times, Daily News and other publishers submitted a response in the multidistrict litigation against OpenAI, asking the court to give no to the Justice Department’s statement of interest that supports OpenAI’s fair‑use defense.
In a brief filed on September 28, 2026, the New York Times Co., Daily News and other news outlets asked the Southern District of New York to disregard the Justice Department’s September 1 statement of interest, which backs OpenAI’s argument that training its models on copyrighted news articles is fair use. The publishers argue the DOJ’s position is based on a policy favoring unrestricted AI development rather than on the specific copyright issues before the court.
The brief notes that the DOJ filed its statement before key documents were unsealed, meaning the agency lacked access to internal company records and testimony indicating that AI products may substitute for news subscriptions. The publishers contend that the DOJ’s reliance on national‑security arguments is unrelated to the core question of whether news publishers should be compensated for the use of their content.
The filing also references a recently unsealed Microsoft executive comment describing the use of copyrighted content for AI training as “the largest theft of labor in human history.” The publishers argue that accepting the DOJ’s fair‑use position would undermine the purpose of copyright law.
Microsoft declined to comment, OpenAI did not immediately respond, and the DOJ also declined comment. The case, In Re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litig., remains pending, with the court yet to rule on the parties’ motions for summary judgment.
Détails de la source: news.bloomberglaw.com ↗
Pourquoi c'est important
The filing challenges the federal government’s stance that AI development should proceed unimpeded, raising the stakes for how copyright law will apply to large‑scale AI training. A court decision could set a precedent for whether AI developers must license news content, affecting the economics of AI model training and the future of news‑media business models.
If the court rejects the DOJ’s fair‑use argument, AI developers may be required to negotiate licensing agreements with news organizations, potentially increasing costs and influencing the data‑selection strategies for future models. This could reshape the competitive landscape, favoring firms that can secure large‑scale licensing deals.
Conversely, a ruling that upholds the DOJ’s position could reinforce a broad interpretation of fair use for AI, encouraging rapid model development but raising concerns about the financial viability of news outlets that rely on subscription revenue.
The case also highlights the tension between national‑security rhetoric and intellectual‑property rights, a dynamic that may congressional scrutiny or new legislation aimed at clarifying AI‑related copyright obligations.
Mécanisme interactif : comment cela fonctionne réellement
Explorez de manière interactive la technologie sous-jacente à ce développement.
Impossibility results in algorithmic fairness (e.g. Kleinberg et al., Chouldechova) show what?
Que regarder ensuite
Future rulings on the fair‑use claim, potential settlement negotiations, and any legislative response that could codify licensing requirements for AI training data.
The district court’s decision on the summary‑judgment motions, which will indicate whether the DOJ’s brief will be considered.
Possible appeals to higher courts, which could create a circuit split on AI copyright issues.
Legislative proposals from Congress that may address AI training data licensing, especially if the court’s ruling sparks industry backlash.