The lawsuit between NYT and OpenAI is still ongoing, this article is about a court order to “preserve evidence” that could be used in the trial. It doesn’t indicate anything about how the case might ultimately be decided.
Last I dug into the NYT v. OpenAI case it looked pretty weak, NYT had heavily massaged their prompts in order to get ChatGPT to regurgitate snippets of their old articles and the judge had called them out on that.
There’s already been a summary judgment in this case ruling that the AI training activity was not by itself copyright violation.
This isn’t an automatic complete win for them.
Being allowed to train under fair use rules doesn’t mean you’re protected if your LLM still regurgitates content.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/nyt-to-start-searching-deleted-chatgpt-logs-after-beating-openai-in-court/
The lawsuit between NYT and OpenAI is still ongoing, this article is about a court order to “preserve evidence” that could be used in the trial. It doesn’t indicate anything about how the case might ultimately be decided.
Last I dug into the NYT v. OpenAI case it looked pretty weak, NYT had heavily massaged their prompts in order to get ChatGPT to regurgitate snippets of their old articles and the judge had called them out on that.
I see. In that case I stand corrected.