사회 가이드

New York Times v. OpenAI Lawsuit Explained

New York Times v.

  • 4분 읽기
  • 마지막 업데이트
이 페이지에서4분 읽기
  1. 개요
  2. 심층 분석
  3. 전략적 영향
  4. The Future of New York Times v. OpenAI Lawsuit Explained
  5. 실제 구현
  6. 위험 및 가드레일
  7. 구현 로드맵
  8. 계속 탐색하세요
  9. 자주 묻는 질문

개요

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.

심층 분석

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.

전략적 영향

위험과 안전

치명적인 AI 피해와 일상적인 AI 피해는 누가 위험을 이해하고 누가 조치를 취할 수 있는지에 따라 달라집니다.

더 명확한 결정들

공공 및 전문 지식은 강력한 안전 정책이 정치적으로 가능한지 여부를 결정합니다.

과장된 과장을 뚫고 나가기

명확한 설명은 과대광고, 연구실 홍보, 모호한 윤리 연극에 의한 포착을 줄입니다.

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.

실제 구현

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.

위험 및 가드레일

  • 실존적 위험을 공상과학처럼 다루면서 능력을 합성합니다.

  • 높은 자율성 하에서 정렬과 표면 제품 안전성을 혼동합니다.

  • 영어가 아니거나 전문가가 아닌 청중에게는 품질이 낮은 소스만 남겨 둡니다.

구현 로드맵

  1. 제품 손상, 오용, 통제력 상실/잘못 정렬 위험을 분리합니다.

  2. 일정과 심각도에 대한 귀하의 견해를 바꿀 수 있는 증거가 무엇인지 물어보십시오.

  3. 마케팅 주장보다 기본 소스와 구체적인 평가를 선호하세요.

  4. 인식뿐만 아니라 경력, 정책, 자금 조달 또는 기술 등 하나의 행동 경로를 식별하십시오.

계속 탐색하세요

Free newsletter

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

Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.

퀴즈 시작

Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation

자주 묻는 질문

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.