The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation and OpenAI

The New York Times Company sued Microsoft Corporation and OpenAI, alleging unauthorized use of its copyrighted works in developing and operating generative-AI products. This record carries the plaintiff allegation, the defendant public position, and later judicial procedural treatment as separate source roles rather than collapsing them into one conclusion.

The record is also navigable through copyright, fair use, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Rule 12(b)(6), and the related candidate record Authors Guild v. OpenAI. These are reading and collection-context links only; proximity does not create evidentiary support.

nformation ecosystem that is awash in unreliable content, The Times’s journalism provides a service that has grown even more valuable to the public by supplying trustworthy information, news analysis, and commentary. 2. Defendants’ unlawful use of The Times’s work to create artificial intelligence products that compete with it threatens The Times’s ability to provide that service. Defendants’ generative artificial intelligence (“G enAI”) tools rely on large-language models (“LLM s”) that were built by copying and using millions of The Times’s copyrighted news articles, in-depth investigations, op

in a new window), American Journalism Project(opens in a new window) and NYU(opens in a new window) offer a glimpse into our approach.2. Training is fair use, but we provide an opt-out because it’s the right thing to doTraining AI models using publicly available internet materials is fair use, as supported by long-standing and widely accepted precedents. We view this principle as fair to creators, necessary for innovators, and critical for US competitiveness.The principle that training AI models is permitted as a fair use is supported by a wide range of academics(opens

icles as a matter of law. The Court therefore grants OpenAI’s motion to dismiss CIR’s claim of direct infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 insofar as it relates to the “abridgments” contained in Exhibit 11. X. C ONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies (1) OpenAI’s motions to dismiss the direct infringement claims involving conduct occurring more than three years before the complaints were filed; (2) defendants’ motions to dismiss the contributory copyright infringement claims; and (3) defendants’ motions to dismiss the state and federal trademark dilution claims in the Daily News action. The Court grants defen