AnswersPublished17 sources
Trump Administration Backs OpenAI’s Fair-Use Defense in New York Times Copyright Case
The Justice Department told the court that training large language models on copyrighted text generally constitutes fair use and that restricting it could hinder U.S. The case still turns on evidence about the use of the works, potential output reproduction and market harm; federal courts have found some AI training...
Published byEdited with GPT-5.6 TerraImages generated with GPT Image 2
Research answer
Key takeaways
- The Justice Department told the court that training large language models on copyrighted text generally constitutes fair use and that restricting it could hinder U.S.
- The case still turns on evidence about the use of the works, potential output reproduction and market harm; federal courts have found some AI training uses transformative while leaving major questions unresolved.
- The New York Times alleges that OpenAI and Microsoft used millions of its articles without permission, while OpenAI maintains that training on publicly available data is protected by fair use.
AI Prompt
openai.comCreate a landscape editorial hero image for this Studio Global article: What did the Trump administration argue in its brief supporting OpenAI in The New York Times’ copyright lawsuit, why does the government bel. Article summary: The administration’s filing is a strong policy endorsement of OpenAI’s fair-use position, but it does not decide the case or bind other courts. It raises the stakes in AI copyright litigation by framing broad access to t. Topic tags: general, news, general web, user generated. Style: premium digital editorial illustration, source-backed research mood, clean composition, high detail, modern web publication hero. Use reference image context only for broad subject, composition, and topical grounding; do not copy the exact image. Avoid: logos, brand marks, copyrighted characters, real person likenesses, fake screenshots, UI text, readable text, watermarks, charts w
The Trump administration has formally supported OpenAI’s fair-use defense in The New York Times’ copyright lawsuit. Its core position is broad: using copyrighted material to train large language models (LLMs) will generally qualify as fair use. But the filing is not a verdict, and it does not establish a nationwide rule for AI companies or copyright owners. 3
What the Justice Department argued
In its filing in Manhattan federal court, the Justice Department argued that LLM training generally makes fair use of copyrighted works. The administration’s position is that the relevant use is transformative: a model learns patterns from a large body of material to generate new content, rather than simply republishing the source works. 3
The government also argued against a rule that would broadly make AI training impermissible without licensing. In its view, such a reading of copyright law would constrain development of advanced AI systems. 2
3
That is an important distinction: the filing supports a general fair-use argument about training, not a blanket immunity for every method of acquiring material or every model output. The facts of a specific dataset, training process and output remain legally relevant. 29
30
Why the administration says AI training matters
The brief frames the issue as more than a private dispute between a publisher and a technology company. The government says a strong, competitive U.S. AI industry serves creative and scientific progress, economic opportunity, prosperity and national-security interests. 3
The policy concern is that requiring AI developers to obtain permission for every copyrighted work used in training could make U.S. development slower or less competitive. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward described the government’s position in terms of maintaining a robust U.S. AI sector, while Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick separately urged countries to permit AI training on creators’ work while finding ways to protect artists. 1
17
What legal weight does the brief carry?
The Justice Department submitted a statement of interest, not a judicial decision. The judge in the Times case must still apply copyright law and evaluate fair use based on the record before the court. The filing therefore does not bind that court, other federal courts or future cases involving other AI developers. 3
Its practical significance is nevertheless substantial. It places the federal government on the side of a broad fair-use theory as copyright owners pursue claims against companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic and Meta. The eventual precedential answers will come from appellate courts, not from the government’s filing. 3
29
What The New York Times alleges
The Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023, alleging that the companies used millions of newspaper articles without authorization to train the models behind ChatGPT. The paper’s claims put the commercial value of journalism and potential licensing markets at the center of the dispute. 18
OpenAI has said its models are trained on publicly available data and that their development is grounded in fair use. 18 The dispute is therefore not only about whether copying occurred, but whether the purpose, character and consequences of that copying satisfy the fair-use doctrine.
Why “transformative” does not settle the issue
Recent federal decisions have provided support for AI companies’ transformative-use arguments, but they have not produced a universal rule.
In a case involving Anthropic, U.S. District Judge William Alsup described training on books as “quintessentially transformative.” In a separate case involving Meta, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria likewise characterized the training use as transformative. 29
Yet the decisions also show why the debate is far from over. Alsup treated the storage of pirated books separately from training, and Chhabria cautioned that AI training might not be fair use in many circumstances—particularly where evidence shows harmful substitution in an existing or emerging market. 29
30
That leaves several questions open in the Times litigation and related cases:
- Were the underlying works lawfully obtained?
- Does the use have a sufficiently different purpose from the original journalism?
- Can a model generate output that reproduces protected expression?
- Does the practice harm, substitute for or undermine a market for the original works or their licensing?
The policy conflict: innovation versus creator protection
The administration’s position favors broad room for AI training as a condition of U.S. technological leadership. The Times and other copyright owners argue that innovation should not require using valuable work without consent or compensation. 3
18
Lutnick’s formulation captures the unresolved policy balance: allow AI development while protecting artists and creators. 17 The courts, however, must resolve the narrower legal question under fair-use doctrine—not choose an industrial policy in the abstract.
Bottom line
The Trump administration’s brief is a consequential endorsement of OpenAI’s legal and policy argument: LLM training on copyrighted material should generally be treated as fair use because of its transformative and socially beneficial role. 3
It does not decide The New York Times case. Whether OpenAI and Microsoft prevail will depend on the evidence and the court’s application of fair use, including the nature of the training use, the source of the material, the risk of infringing outputs and the effect on journalism’s markets. 29
30
Studio Global AI
Continue your research
This page includes a source-backed answer you can continue inside Studio Global.
People also ask
What is the short answer to "Trump Administration Backs OpenAI’s Fair-Use Defense in New York Times Copyright Case"?
The Justice Department told the court that training large language models on copyrighted text generally constitutes fair use and that restricting it could hinder U.S.
What are the key points to validate first?
The Justice Department told the court that training large language models on copyrighted text generally constitutes fair use and that restricting it could hinder U.S. The case still turns on evidence about the use of the works, potential output reproduction and market harm; federal courts have found some AI training uses transformative while leaving major questions unresolved.
What should I do next in practice?
The New York Times alleges that OpenAI and Microsoft used millions of its articles without permission, while OpenAI maintains that training on publicly available data is protected by fair use.