The New York Times' Attempt to Remove ChatGPT - A Noble Effort

The battle between copyright holders and generative AI companies is heating up, and The New York Times is leading the charge. The publication recently filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft that claims copyright infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. The suit seeks not just monetary compensation but also the destruction of all the defendant’s LLM models and training data, as well as a halt to unlicensed training on the publication’s articles. “When you have these big technology shifts, the law has to adjust,” says Cecilia Ziniti, a Silicon Valley attorney. This case is historic because The New York Times has millions and millions of words that are used for training, indicating a need for regulation and oversight in this evolving field.

The New York Times’s lawsuit is notable for its scope, accusing the defendants of “copying and using millions of The Times’s copyrighted articles.” Supported by one hundred examples of ChatGPT reproducing near-exact copy from The New York Times articles, the suit highlights the potential for AI to infringe on copyrighted works. Despite the strong case, the outcome is uncertain. Precedent cases, like the Authors Guild lawsuit against Google Books, suggest that the use of copyrighted data to train AI might be protected under certain conditions.

Recent agreements between OpenAI and other publishers might complicate the case. OpenAI’s deals to use publisher content for AI training indicate a market for data usage, which could influence the lawsuit’s outcome. However, the specifics of these agreements and their effect on the case are yet unknown.

As the legal battle unfolds, the broader implications for copyright law and AI are immense. The resolution of The New York Times’s suit, whether it fails or succeeds, will significantly impact the landscape of AI development and the use of copyrighted materials for training purposes. If deemed outside of Fair Use protections, only the most well-funded companies may be able to afford AI training, potentially stifling innovation and variety in the field.

In conclusion, the lawsuit represents a critical moment in the relationship between copyright law and AI. Its outcome will influence not just the parties involved but also the future of AI development and the responsible use of copyrighted content.