New York Times sues OpenAI and Microsoft for using millions of copyrighted articles to train AI

The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for alleged unauthorized use of the publication's copyrighted works to train its AI via large language models (LLMs).

2

The lawsuit (The New York Times Company v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 1:23-cv-11195) could be a landmark case that establishes precedent for artificial intelligence, namely those fueled by large language models like ChatGPT.

On Wednesday, December 27, the The New York Times filed a complaint against OpenAI and Microsoft for allegedly using its lawfully protected written material to train AI chatbots like ChatGPT. More specifically, NYT is suing both parties for copyright violation. One exhibit (Exhibit J) provided 100 instances where chatbots quoted NYT articles verbatim.

"The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement on Wednesday, opening a new front in the increasingly intense legal battle over the unauthorized use of published work to train artificial intelligence technologies," the NYT writes in a news post.

The 172-year-old publication goes on to say that it approached Microsoft and OpenAI in April to discuss potential commercial agreements for the use of The NYT's articles for AI training purposes. The NYT also sought "technological guardrails" that would protect its copyrighted material. These discussions didn't lead to a resolution on the matter.

"Despite its early promises of altruism, OpenAI quickly became a multi-billion-dollar for-profit business built in large part on the unlicensed exploitation of copyrighted works belonging to The Times and others," the complaint states.

Earlier this year, it was announced that Microsoft invested $10 billion into OpenAI, and artificial intelligence has become a cornerstone of Microsoft's core business via its Copilot solution.

The matter could set the course for the future of AI and the lawsuit is expected to reach the highest of U.S. courts. Experts like former ProPublica president Richard Tofel tells The Times that a "Supreme Court decision" is "essentially inevitable."