The Justice Department has weighed in on a high-profile copyright lawsuit, backing OpenAI's argument that training AI models on publishers' work is fair use. The case, which is consolidated in the Southern District of New York, pits OpenAI against the New York Times, Ziff Davis, and 400 local newspapers.

The government's filing argues that licensing costs would not only threaten national security but also hand the largest technology companies an oligopoly on model training. This, the Justice Department claims, would hinder American prosperity and economic mobility. The New York Times, however, rejects this argument, stating that the administration's stance favors trillion-dollar AI companies over American creators.

The case centers on whether training AI models on copyrighted materials constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law. The 'fair use' doctrine shields certain uses of copyrighted materials, and the government's letter argues that the Times' definition of fair use is inconsistent with current law. A win for the paper, the government warns, could have disastrous consequences for the development of AI in the US.

While the letter focuses on the New York Times and OpenAI, the government notes that its arguments apply to all parties in related cases. The administration argues that training large language models (LLMs) on copyrighted works is 'extraordinarily transformative,' meaning that these systems meaningfully change their inputs. Furthermore, the government claims that OpenAI's LLMs do not significantly compete with the New York Times' articles.

Courts consider several conditions when deciding if the fair use doctrine is met, including whether the use is transformative and whether it harms the market for the original work. The government's letter compares AI training to human writers practicing their craft by typing out others' stories, arguing that conflating AI training with what AI tools produce would have problematic implications for copyright law.

Evan Brown, an intellectual property lawyer, tells WIRED that the US district judge overseeing the case is not obligated to let the government's letter influence his decision, but judges will likely take it seriously due to its origin from the Department of Justice. Pamela Samuelson, a copyright lawyer, calls the government's brief a 'significant development' consistent with AI copyright rulings thus far.

The New York Times and other plaintiffs have expressed disappointment and criticism over the government's stance, arguing that AI companies should pay fairly for the content that makes their products possible. OpenAI and Microsoft have not commented on the government's letter. The case is part of a larger fight over copyright and AI, with dozens of ongoing lawsuits and new ones emerging, including recent suits from Sony and Warner Music against Anthropic.

Este artículo fue escrito con la asistencia de IA.
News Factory APP - noticias agénticas para impulsar tu SEO y AEO.