A Microsoft executive described the training of artificial intelligence models as the "largest theft of labor in human history," according to a legal brief filed by the New York Times that was unsealed Thursday. The same executive, in a separate instance cited in the brief, called it "an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions." The statements, revealed in the Times's copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, place a tech giant's own words at the center of a legal battle over how AI companies use creative work without permission or payment.
The unsealed brief contains internal Microsoft communications that could influence courts and regulators weighing the boundaries of fair use. For writers, whose livelihoods depend on the value of their words, the disclosure confirms what many have suspected: that some inside the companies building these systems understand the practice as extraction.
What the legal brief reveals
The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023, alleging that the companies used millions of its articles to train chatbots that now compete with the publication. The newly unsealed filing includes deposition testimony and internal documents that the Times argues show the defendants knew they were using copyrighted material without authorization.
The Microsoft executive's comments are the most striking element. Calling the training process "theft" goes beyond typical corporate language about disruption or transformation. It frames the entire data collection pipeline - scraping websites, ingesting books, processing journalism - as a form of uncompensated labor extraction.
The brief does not name the executive, and Microsoft has not disputed the authenticity of the quotes. The company has previously argued that training AI on publicly available data constitutes fair use under copyright law.
What this means for copyright law
The case sits at the intersection of technology and intellectual property law. Courts have never ruled definitively on whether AI training qualifies as fair use. The Times's argument leans on the idea that OpenAI and Microsoft copied its work wholesale and built products that directly substitute for the original - a key factor in fair use analysis.
If the court sides with the Times, AI companies could face requirements to license training data or exclude copyrighted material. That would reshape the economics of model development. Several publishers, including the Associated Press and Axel Springer, have already struck licensing deals. Others, like the Times, chose litigation.
Why this matters for writers
The Microsoft executive's language - "largest theft of labor in human history" - names exactly what writers experience when their work trains systems designed to replace them. Freelancers, staff writers, and authors see their published articles, books, and scripts absorbed into models that then produce text on demand, often mimicking their style and expertise.
No court has yet ordered AI companies to compensate individual writers for training data. But the framing in this brief could influence pending legislation and future lawsuits. Writers tracking these developments may want to understand how AI models actually use their work. Resources like AI for Writers explain the technical side of training and generation in plain terms.
For scriptwriters, the stakes are particularly high. Studios and production companies are already experimenting with AI-generated scripts and dialogue. The AI for Scriptwriters learning path covers what these tools can and cannot do - knowledge that helps writers advocate for their own value in contract negotiations.
The deposition quotes will not decide the case on their own. But they give writers something they rarely get in disputes with technology companies: an admission, from inside the room, that the work was taken.
Your membership also unlocks:
