A federal judge is weighing summary judgment motions in a copyright lawsuit that could reshape how news publishers and AI companies coexist. The New York Times and a coalition of publishers filed their arguments Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming OpenAI and Microsoft illegally used millions of copyrighted articles to train their AI models. Judge Sidney H. Stein is expected to rule in the coming weeks on whether the case proceeds to trial.
The core legal dispute centers on two questions: whether the publishers' articles were sufficiently "transformed" into new work by AI systems, and whether AI-generated content acts as a substitute for news articles, diminishing their value. The Times argues neither condition favors the tech companies.
The fair use argument
The Times contends its articles were not transformed by OpenAI and Microsoft and therefore do not qualify for "fair use" protections under copyright law. The news outlet says the companies copied articles illegally in multiple ways while building their AI technologies. A.I. companies now compete with The Times as a source of information, the outlet argued in its suit.
Lawyers for The Times said OpenAI and Microsoft had illegally copied news publishers' articles in several ways in the process of building their A.I. systems. The briefs filed Friday represent the last opportunity for the companies to seek summary judgment before a potential trial.
Substitution and market harm
The publishers claim AI products from OpenAI and Microsoft serve as a direct substitute for their journalism. This substitution, they argue, harms the commercial value of their reporting. The legal theory hinges on whether AI outputs replicate the informational function of original news articles closely enough to displace demand for the source material.
"The future not just of journalism but of responsible A.I., too, depends on preserving incentives for humans to produce the creative works on which a healthy society depends," The Times wrote in its filing.
The broader legal context
The suit, originally filed in 2023, has drawn attention across the media and tech industries. A group of other news outlets later joined The Times as plaintiffs. The case is one of several high-profile copyright disputes testing how training data for large language models intersects with intellectual property law. For legal professionals tracking AI regulation, the outcome could establish precedent for how courts interpret transformation and market substitution in the context of generative AI. Those working in AI for Legal roles are watching closely, as the ruling may influence how law firms and corporate legal departments assess AI-related copyright risk.
Why this matters for legal professionals
The summary judgment ruling will provide the clearest signal yet on whether courts view AI training on copyrighted content as fair use or infringement. For in-house counsel and litigators, the decision will shape risk assessments around AI vendor contracts, data provenance diligence, and potential exposure for companies using third-party AI tools. Paralegals and legal support staff involved in discovery and document review may also see practical effects on how AI tools are deployed in legal workflows - a topic covered in depth through AI for Paralegals training resources. The case underscores that copyright law, not just AI regulation, will define the boundaries of permissible training data use.
Your membership also unlocks:
