What to know:
- A New York federal judge dismissed a copyright lawsuit filed by Raw Story and AlterNet against OpenAI.
- The news outlets failed to prove “concrete injury” from OpenAI’s use of their content for AI training.
- The ruling could significantly impact other ongoing copyright cases against AI companies.
The legal landscape of AI and copyright law witnessed a significant development as OpenAI secured a crucial victory in a copyright lawsuit. Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York dismissed the case brought by news outlets Raw Story Media and AlterNet Media against the ChatGPT maker, as per the Court Listener.
According to the court ruling (PDF), the news outlets were unable to demonstrate any tangible harm from OpenAI’s alleged removal of copyright management information from their articles. The plaintiffs had sought $2,500 in damages per violation, claiming that OpenAI had “intentionally” removed copyright data, including work titles, author names, and terms of use.
The judge’s decision notably supported OpenAI’s position that ChatGPT creates synthesized responses rather than direct copies. Judge McMahon emphasized that the likelihood of ChatGPT reproducing exact copies of articles is minimal, given the vast amount of data in its repository. The ruling also addressed past instances of verbatim copying, characterizing them as rare bugs rather than intended functionality.
This legal victory could have far-reaching implications for similar ongoing cases, including the New York Times lawsuit against OpenAI and cases filed by music companies against AI music generators. While the judge has left the door open for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, she expressed skepticism about their ability to prove cognizable injury.
The relationship between AI companies and media outlets remains complex, with some organizations like The Associated Press and News Corp. reaching agreements with OpenAI for content use, while others continue to pursue legal action.
This ruling marks a key moment for AI’s role in copyright law, as the court backs OpenAI’s stance on synthesized, rather than copied, responses.
