The Department of Justice has sided with OpenAI in its legal dispute with The New York Times over allegations of copyright infringement. In a court filing, the DOJ asserted that the use of copyrighted content to train artificial intelligence models does not constitute a violation of copyright law. The New York Times initiated its lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023, claiming that OpenAI used millions of its copyrighted articles to develop AI products that directly compete with the newspaper. This case is one of several similar lawsuits filed against OpenAI and other major AI developers.
The DOJ's filing emphasized the nation's interest in encouraging the development of AI models, which it deems critical for U.S. national security. The department suggested that an unfavorable ruling for OpenAI could hinder AI development, as foreign adversaries would not be similarly constrained by copyright laws. Furthermore, the DOJ expressed concern that such a ruling could impede competition in the large language model (LLM) market, potentially limiting it to a few well-capitalized technology companies that could afford licensing fees.
"It would be problematic—and legally incorrect—to impose broad copyright liability that would generally render training of AI models impermissible without licensing," the DOJ stated in its brief. The department argued that imposing broad copyright liability could render AI model training impermissible without licensing, which it deems legally incorrect.
In response, a spokesperson for The New York Times criticized the administration's stance, stating it favors large AI companies over creators whose work is allegedly used without permission or compensation. "Both AI and creators can thrive – AI companies simply need to pay fairly for the content that makes their products possible, as copyright law requires," the spokesperson said in a statement. The Times argued that allowing companies to use content without permission or compensation undermines the sustainability of human-created content essential for society and AI functionality.
Some observers, like Evan Swarztrauber, a former FCC adviser, noted that the DOJ's position appeared to diverge from the administration's own AI framework released in March. That framework had suggested Congress consider collective licensing agreements to ensure media firms are compensated for their content. Swarztrauber speculated about a potential disconnect between the DOJ and the White House, highlighting that the AI framework acknowledged the complexities of copyright and the importance of licensing, while the DOJ's brief seemed to adopt an anti-licensing stance.
Industry groups have also voiced concerns. The News/Media Alliance, representing over 2,000 outlets, expressed apprehension over the DOJ's filing. Danielle Coffey, president and CEO of the News/Media Alliance, stated, "We understand the draw of economic investment that AI companies are promising, but strict application of the law is required by the courts, and we continue to believe the NYT has a winning case." Coffey also emphasized the significant economic and societal contributions of the creative community. White House representatives declined to comment on the filing.