New York Times-led group of publishers asks federal court to sanction OpenAI in copyright case
How left and right are reading this
- Both agree
- A fight over searchable, preserved evidence now sits at the center of a copyright case about AI systems using publishers’ reporting without permission.
- They split on
- Whether the story is about protecting the people who produce original reporting from uncompensated extraction, or about enforcing equal court rules for preserving and producing evidence.
The Facts
- The New York Times, the New York Daily News and other publishers asked a federal court in Manhattan to impose sanctions on OpenAI.
- The sanctions request was filed as part of ongoing copyright litigation in which publishers accuse OpenAI of using their news articles to train AI systems without permission.
- The publishers alleged that OpenAI falsely told the court it could not search its systems or large language models for the plaintiffs' copyrighted material.
- The publishers also alleged that OpenAI deleted billions of relevant ChatGPT conversations or made them unsearchable.
- The publishers asked for sanctions that include attorneys' fees, and some reports say they also sought a court finding tied to what OpenAI's chat logs would show about use of their copyrighted works.
- The underlying dispute centers on whether AI chatbots built with large collections of news articles compete with publishers by providing information without doing the original reporting work, affecting publishers' traffic and business interests.
- OpenAI has denied the publishers' copyright claims in the broader litigation, while the new sanctions motion raises unresolved questions for the court about discovery conduct and what evidence OpenAI must preserve or produce.
Context
What are the publishers asking the court to do?
They are asking the federal court to sanction OpenAI over its conduct during fact discovery, including requests for penalties such as attorneys' fees and other court action related to allegedly withheld evidence NYT,Reuters,cnbctv18.com.
What evidence do the publishers say matters most?
The publishers say evidence in OpenAI's training datasets and ChatGPT output or conversation logs could show what copyrighted material was used and how often, which they argue is central to the copyright case Hill,Globe and Mail,Ars Technica.
Why does this case matter beyond the immediate parties?
Multiple reports describe the litigation as a test of how AI companies can use copyrighted news content and whether chatbots are competing with publishers for audiences and web traffic, making the case relevant to both the news industry and AI developers Bakersfield Califor…,Al Jazeera Online,Euronews English.
Facts first. Then every angle.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief — the facts everyone agrees on, then the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.
View all 83 sources
Wire services (13)
Independent coverage (50)
About these frames
See this differently than someone you know would? Two ways to keep it going.
The dial works on any URL — paste an article you read elsewhere this week.