Case Background

On November 7, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted OpenAI’s motion to dismiss a copyright lawsuit filed by Raw Story and AlterNet, two news organizations.

The lawsuit was initiated in February 2024. The Plaintiffs, Raw Story and AlterNet, alleged that their collection of “over 400,000 breaking news reports, investigative articles, and opinion columns” were misused by OpenAI to train its large language model, ChatGPT.

This case has drawn widespread attention from the media and the public, reigniting debates over the contentious relationship between copyright and AI tools.

Key Arguments

The plaintiffs, Raw Story and AlterNet, claimed that OpenAI used their copyrighted news content without permission to train its language model. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' removal of copyright management information (“CMI”) from Plaintiffs' works-prior to training ChatGPT-  is a violation of Section 1202(b)(i) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”), for which Plaintiffs are entitled to actual or statutory damages.

Plaintiffs further seek injunctive relief against Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that earlier versions of ChatGPT generated significant amounts of plagiarized content. If Plaintiffs' works remain in ChatGPT's repository without any CMI, there is a substantial likelihood that the current version of ChatGPT will reproduce, verbatim or nearly verbatim, Plaintiffs' copyrighted works without providing the author, title, or copyright information contained in those works.

OpenAI argued that the Plaintiffs fail to prove their actual loss and therefore did not meet the requirement for damages. It also pointed out that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief because they fail to allege facts tending to show that the risk of ChatGPT reproducing Plaintiffs' work, in whole or in part, absent the requisite CMI is “substantial.”

Court’s Opinion

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ two claims, i.e. damage claim and injunctive relief claim. The court held that they failed to establish specific and actual harm resulting from OpenAI’s actions. Merely removing or omitting CMI does not constitute concrete damage. Thus, the court did not support the damage claim. 

As for the injunctive relief claim, the judge pointed out that when a user inputs a question into ChatGPT, ChatGPT synthesizes the relevant information in its repository into an answer. Given the quantity of information contained in the repository, the likelihood that ChatGPT would output plagiarized content from one of Plaintiffs' articles seems remote. And while Plaintiffs provide third-party statistics indicating that an earlier version of ChatGPT generated responses containing significant amounts of plagiarized content, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that there is a “substantial risk” that the current version of ChatGPT will generate a response plagiarizing one of Plaintiffs ' articles.

Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claims for damages and injunctive relief were deemed inadmissible due to a lack of demonstrated harm.

However, the court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint if they could provide new evidence of actual harm or specific instances where their works were generated by ChatGPT.

Reflections on the AI-Copyright Relationship

Redefining the Boundaries of Fair Use

The emergence of AI challenges traditional interpretations of fair use in copyright law.

Legal frameworks must evolve to balance technological advancement with the protection of creators’ rights.

Adapting Copyright Laws

Current copyright laws are inadequately equipped to address AI technologies, necessitating future legislative or case law clarifications.

Striking a balance between fostering innovation and protecting rights holders is essential amid rapid AI advancements.

Compliance for Technology Developers

OpenAI’s victory does not grant AI developers carte blanche to use copyrighted material indiscriminately.

Developers must prioritize compliance by adopting transparent and prudent strategies for data acquisition and usage.

Implications for Future Cases

This case sets a significant precedent for future disputes involving AI and copyright. It underscores the critical importance of demonstrating specific and actual harm in copyright infringement lawsuits. Plaintiffs must provide sufficient evidence of tangible damage caused by defendants’ actions to succeed in court.

The ruling also highlights the nature of generative AI outputs, which synthesize information rather than copy and paste, requiring nuanced consideration of AI’s mechanisms when assessing infringement claims.

Furthermore, the case prompts a deeper reflection on how to balance technological progress with copyright protection. While we should encourage AI innovation and its application across industries, we must also strengthen copyright safeguards to protect creators’ legitimate rights and prevent unauthorized use. Achieving this balance requires continuous refinement of laws and clearer definitions of the legal relationship between AI and copyright.

Conclusion

This case is more than a dispute over copyright and AI; it is a profound exploration of the balance between technological progress and copyright protection. It serves as a reminder that while fostering AI development, we must also ensure robust copyright enforcement, creating a fair, equitable, and orderly legal environment for both creators and innovators.