社團指南

New York Times v. OpenAI Lawsuit Explained

New York Times v.

  • 4 分鐘閱讀
  • 最後更新
本頁4 分鐘閱讀
  1. 概述
  2. 深入探討
  3. 戰略影響
  4. The Future of New York Times v. OpenAI Lawsuit Explained
  5. 現實世界的實施
  6. 風險與防護欄
  7. 實施路線圖
  8. 不斷探索
  9. 常見問題

概述

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.

深入探討

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.

戰略影響

風險與安全

災難性和日常的人工智慧危害都取決於誰了解風險以及誰能夠採取行動。

更明確的決策

民眾和專業素養決定強而有力的安全政策在政治上是否可行。

突破炒作

清晰的解釋可以減少炒作、實驗室公關和模糊道德劇場的影響。

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.

現實世界的實施

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.

風險與防護欄

  • 將存在風險視為科幻小說,同時能力複合。

  • 混淆了表面產品安全與高度自治下的對準。

  • 只給非英語和非專業觀眾留下低品質的資源。

實施路線圖

  1. 單獨的產品危害、誤用和失控/失調風險。

  2. 詢問哪些證據會改變您對時間表和嚴重性的看法。

  3. 比起行銷主張,更喜歡主要來源和具體評估。

  4. 確定一條行動路徑:職業、政策、資金或技能——而不僅僅是意識。

不斷探索

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.

開始測驗

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

常見問題

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.