Trump’s DoJ Backs OpenAI In Legal Face Off With New York Times
The Trump administration's Justice Department has filed a brief in New York federal court supporting OpenAI in a high-profile copyright lawsuit brought by The New York Times, arguing that training AI systems on copyrighted material qualifies as fair use. It is understood to be the first time the US government has intervened on these contested legal questions, which could significantly shape numerous ongoing cases brought against AI firms by news publishers, music companies and film studios. The Times condemned the move, accusing the administration of siding with "trillion-dollar AI companies" over creators whose work it says was misappropriated without payment.
The DoJ's filing leans heavily on national security, warning that restricting AI training could hamper the development of technology used in intelligence analysis and weapons systems, thereby handing an advantage to foreign rivals. It also argues that requiring licensing fees would entrench large legacy media companies and stifle competition, since only well-funded firms could afford such payments. The brief further criticises a prior ruling in a related case against Meta, urging the court hearing the OpenAI dispute not to follow reasoning that treated AI training and its outputs as a single, continuous act of market substitution. The Times is among dozens of publishers suing AI firms over the use of their content in training data, with most cases likely to hinge on the fair use question.
In short
- DoJ backs OpenAI's fair use defence in NYT copyright lawsuit
- Argues AI restrictions would threaten US national security
- Times accuses administration of favouring big AI firms over creators
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Treating the use of copyrighted works to train AI as fair use could allow researchers and companies to build useful systems without negotiating licences for vast datasets, which may be impractical and favour established firms able to pay. The DoJ argues that restrictions could also slow AI development relevant to national security and leave the United States at a disadvantage to foreign rivals.
The case against
Publishers argue that using their work without permission or payment takes value from creators and may let AI companies benefit from journalism they did not produce. If AI systems can substitute for news content or undermine publishers’ markets, requiring licences could help sustain the work on which both journalism and AI development may depend.
Explained simply
Artificial intelligence systems are trained on large collections of text and other material so they can respond to prompts. The New York Times and other publishers say AI companies used their work without permission or payment; the companies argue that using it to train models can be lawful fair use, a US copyright principle that allows some uses without a licence.
The Times is suing OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, in a case that could help clarify how copyright law applies to AI training. Similar cases have been brought by music companies, film studios and other publishers, so the court’s reasoning may affect the wider industry.
The Justice Department’s brief says limits on training could hinder AI development for national security and make it harder for smaller firms to compete if they must pay licensing fees. The dispute therefore concerns how copyright protections apply to new technology, as well as who can afford to build it.
AI Government Politics Technology