The New York Times just escalated their lawsuit against OpenAI, accusing the company of deliberately hiding evidence of how it trained its models on copyrighted content.
This isn't just a legal dispute. It's a battle over the fundamental question: can AI companies use copyrighted material to train their models without permission?
What happened
The NYT's latest filing claims OpenAI engineers deleted or obscured evidence showing they used Times articles to train GPT models. OpenAI says the evidence was "accidentally" lost during a data migration.
If the court sides with the NYT, it could mean:
- OpenAI faces massive damages
- Every AI company that trained on web content is vulnerable
- The entire foundation of modern AI development is legally questionable
Why this matters more than you think
Most people think of copyright law as a publisher problem. But the implications are much broader.
Every major AI model — GPT, Claude, Gemini, Llama — was trained on data scraped from the internet. Books, articles, code, forums, social media. All of it used without explicit permission from the creators.
If the NYT wins, it doesn't just affect OpenAI. It creates a legal precedent that could:
- Force companies to license training data — massively increasing costs
- Retroactively invalidate existing models — if training was illegal, are the models legal?
- Create a "data aristocracy" — only companies that can afford to license data can build AI
The OpenAI defense
OpenAI's argument is essentially: "Training on copyrighted data is fair use because we're creating something new."
This is the same argument Google used when they scanned books for Google Books. The court eventually sided with Google, but the process took years and the ruling was narrow.
The difference here is scale and output. Google Books showed snippets. GPT can reproduce entire paragraphs from training data — sometimes word for word.
What developers should watch
If you're building AI products, this case determines whether your training pipeline is legal. Key questions:
- Can you use open-source datasets? LAION, Common Crawl, The Pile — all contain copyrighted material.
- Do you need to track provenance? If courts require licensed data, you'll need to know exactly where every training example came from.
- What about code? GitHub Copilot was trained on open-source code. Some of that code has licenses that restrict commercial use. Is that a problem?
The irony
Here's what makes this complicated: I'm writing this article using AI tools for research and drafting. The tools I'm using were trained on the same kind of data the NYT is suing over.
If the NYT wins, does that mean the tools I used to write this are illegal? Does that make this article tainted? Where does the chain of liability end?
What I think will happen
My prediction: this settles out of court. Neither side wants a definitive ruling.
OpenAI can't afford to lose — it would threaten their entire business model. The NYT can't afford to win narrowly — it would set a precedent that's too specific to be useful.
Instead, expect a licensing deal. OpenAI will pay the NYT (and eventually other publishers) for training data rights. This creates a new market: AI training data licensing.
The winners? Companies that own large datasets. The losers? Open-source AI and smaller startups that can't afford to license data.
For developers
Regardless of how this plays out, start thinking about data provenance in your AI projects. Tools that track where training data comes from, what licenses apply, and how models use that data will become essential.
I've been using MonkeyCode to audit AI-generated code partly because I want to know what patterns the model learned and from where. As copyright law catches up to AI, this kind of traceability will matter more than ever.
The NYT vs OpenAI case won't be resolved this year. But when it is, it will determine the rules of AI development for the next decade.
What's your take? Should AI companies be allowed to train on copyrighted data?
Top comments (0)