The Battle Between the Press and AI: NYT’s Copyright Case Against OpenAI Moves Forward

In a closely watched case with wide implications for both the tech and publishing industries, a federal judge in New York has ruled that The New York Times’ lawsuit against OpenAI may proceed. The core allegation? That OpenAI unlawfully used the newspaper’s copyrighted content to train ChatGPT—without permission or compensation.

At Ed White Law, where we regularly advise clients on protecting their intellectual property, this case highlights a pivotal moment in copyright law. As AI continues to evolve, so do the legal questions about what “fair use” truly means in the age of machine learning.

What’s at Stake?

Judge Sidney Stein of the Southern District of New York denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing The Times’ central copyright infringement claims to go forward. While the judge narrowed the scope of the case (details forthcoming in an upcoming opinion), the ruling still represents a meaningful win for traditional content creators seeking to safeguard their work in a rapidly changing digital world.

The case will now move into discovery—depositions, evidence gathering, and pretrial hearings—though a trial date has not yet been set.

Fair Use, AI, and the Future of Copyright

At the heart of the case is the legal doctrine of fair use, which allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as education, commentary, and research. OpenAI argues that its use of publicly available data, including content from The Times, falls squarely under this doctrine.

But The Times sees it differently. The newspaper contends that its journalism has been copied in a way that is not “transformative” and, crucially, that ChatGPT’s outputs can serve as a market substitute for visiting the newspaper’s website—threatening ad revenue and the long-term viability of news organizations.

In court, OpenAI pushed back against claims that ChatGPT reproduces articles verbatim, arguing that the examples cited were the result of manipulated prompts and don’t reflect how typical users interact with the tool. Their stance: ChatGPT is a large language model—not a document retrieval system.

Why It Matters

This case is about more than just The New York Times and OpenAI. It’s a bellwether for how courts may treat copyright claims in the AI space going forward. While OpenAI and its backer, Microsoft, are the named defendants, the legal theories at play could affect nearly every company in the AI sector.

Publishers are worried, and reasonably so. If courts find that AI outputs are effectively repackaging copyrighted content without compensation, we may see a legal recalibration that forces companies to rethink how they train and deploy AI models.

For creators—whether they’re journalists, artists, or entrepreneurs—this case is a reminder of how essential it is to understand your rights and take proactive steps to protect your intellectual property.

We’ll be watching this case closely as it develops, and we’ll continue to share insights on how emerging technology intersects with the law.

If you have questions about protecting your creative work in the digital age, we’re always here to help.

Written by Christine at Ed White Law, where we believe that innovation and intellectual property should be protected hand-in-hand.