Trump administration files brief supporting OpenAI in New York Times copyright lawsuit

The filing, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that the United States has a 'strong interest' in developing a robust and competitive AI industry that sets global standards. It references an executive order President Donald Trump signed last year titled 'Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence.'

'Constraining LLM development under a misunderstanding of fair use doctrine would thwart such creative and scientific progress while hindering American prosperity and economic mobility,' the brief states.

The central legal question — whether training AI models on copyrighted material constitutes copyright infringement or is protected under fair use — has been the subject of extensive litigation. Fair use is a carve-out in copyright law that allows unlicensed use of copyrighted works in certain circumstances, often judged on whether the new use is 'transformative.'

So far, courts have largely ruled in favour of AI companies on this specific question. In a separate case last year, Judge William Alsup ordered AI company Anthropic to pay a $1.5 billion settlement to a group of writers. However, the penalty was not for training on copyrighted works per se, but for using illegal shadow libraries to obtain the books. Judge Alsup compared an LLM's training to a human reading a book, writing: 'Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic's LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different.'

The Trump administration's brief is not a binding ruling, and the judge hearing the New York Times case retains full jurisdiction. However, the government's intervention could carry weight in the ongoing legal proceedings.

Why This Matters

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for whether AI companies must pay publishers for training data, directly affecting the business models of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and other LLMs.
The administration's explicit linkage of AI copyright law to national economic competitiveness signals that Washington views restrictive rulings as a threat to US tech dominance.
Creators and publishers face an uncertain future — if fair use prevails broadly, they may lose control over how their works are used in AI training.

Background

The lawsuit, filed by the New York Times against OpenAI, challenges the legality of training AI models on copyrighted news articles, books and other media without permission or compensation. The case hinges on fair use doctrine, which considers factors including the purpose of the new use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used and the effect on the market for the original. Earlier rulings, including Judge Alsup's decision in the Anthropic case, have tended to treat AI training as a transformative use similar to how a human reader learns from a book — though that case's penalty for using illicit sources shows courts are still drawing lines.

Key Perspectives

AI companies (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google): Argue that training on copyrighted material is transformative fair use, essential for building competitive AI systems, and analogous to human learning. They point to national competitiveness and innovation. Publishers and creators (New York Times, authors): Contend that unlicensed use of their works for commercial AI training is outright theft, undermining their livelihoods and intellectual property rights. They seek compensation and control. Trump administration: Aligns with AI companies, prioritising American technological leadership and economic prosperity over expansive copyright enforcement against AI training — framing the issue as a matter of national strategic interest.

What to Watch

The judge's ruling in the Southern District of New York, which could clarify the outer bounds of fair use for AI training.
Congressional or executive action — the administration's brief may foreshadow further policy moves, possibly via executive order or agency guidance.
Parallel lawsuits: Other publishers and creators have filed similar cases against AI companies; the NYT ruling could influence their trajectory.

ZOTPAPER