• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Trump Administration Backs OpenAI Against New York Times

    The filing argues training large language models on copyrighted texts serves US national interests.

    MB
    RO
    GM
    25 Sources, 28d ago, first seen 28d ago

    TLDR

    The Department of Justice filed a statement in the Southern District of New York backing OpenAI and Microsoft against the New York Times. Multiple accounts describe the brief as stating that training AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright law and that treating it as infringement would harm science, prosperity, and national security. Mike Isaac of the Times reported the filing and noted the paper's vigorous pushback. Other observers called the move Washington's first formal intervention in ongoing AI copyright cases.

    Combined views

    1.7M

    25 Sources, first seen 28d ago

    Combined views

    1.7M

    25 Sources, first seen 28d ago

    11.6K likes
    11.6K likes
    442 comments
    2.2K saves
    1.7K reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive25%75%Negative

    Based on 57 sentiment-bearing replies from 44 accounts across 7 conversations.

    442 comments
    2.2K saves
    1.7K reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive25%75%Negative

    Based on 57 sentiment-bearing replies from 44 accounts across 7 conversations.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    25 Sources

    @AdamEisgrauSEISMIC for @OpenAI: @TheJusticeDept has filed a 20pg Statement w/ the SDNY affirming: training gen AI on © works is lawful fair use; the doctrine is vital to US interests; "dilution" is not cognizable harm" + mandating training data licensing would be "legally incorrect": 🔥
    @tszzlRT @AdamEisgrau: SEISMIC for @OpenAI: @TheJusticeDept has filed a 20pg Statement w/ the SDNY affirming: training gen AI on © works is lawfu…
    @stevesiSuper interesting.
    @MTSliveSITUATION DETECTED: The US government has sided with OpenAI against the New York Times. The DoJ says training an LLM on copyrighted works does not violate copyright law, and that treating it as infringement would hurt US science, prosperity, and national security.
    @ScobleizerRT @MTSlive: SITUATION DETECTED: The US government has sided with OpenAI against the New York Times. The DoJ says training an LLM on copyri…
    @AndrewCurran_The Trump administration filed a brief supporting OpenAI against the New York Times. The Department of Justice told the court that the United States has a strong interest in 'rejecting any argument that training LLMs on copyrighted texts violates copyright law,' including on national-security grounds. The filing also says training is 'extraordinarily transformative', thus is fair use, and does not violate copyright law.
    @ledwardsCorrect on all points.
    @MikeIsaacthe Department of Justice filed what it calls an "historic" letter of interest in the NYT vs OpenAI/MSFT lawsuit, supporting OpenAI. Trump admin argues it is in the "national interest" to support OAI in the copyright case. NYT sent us statement with vigorous pushback below:
    @rohanpaul_aiA massive win for OpenAI (and for AI training in general) for its legal case against New York Times. The U.S. govt just formally backed OpenAI’s claim that copyrighted-text training is fair use, partly on national-security grounds. This is Washington’s first formal intervention in the wider wave of copyright lawsuits over AI training, though the filing is advisory rather than binding on the court. The U.S. Dept of Justice filed a statement of interest of the US formally arguing in the OpenAI copyright litigation that training LLMs on copyrighted texts should generally qualify as fair use; That distinction still leaves separate copyright questions around how training data was acquired and whether particular outputs reproduce protected passages. The Justice dept separated acquiring material, training on it, and generating outputs, then focuses its argument specifically on copying at the training stage. It argues that training serves a different purpose from publishing an article because an LLM uses text to learn statistical relationships and generate new responses. For market harm, DOJ says training itself does not substitute for the original work, so later AI-generated competition should not automatically make the earlier training unlawful. The administration also warns that blanket licensing requirements could raise barriers for smaller AI companies and put U.S. developers at a disadvantage against foreign competitors. The court must still decide fair use case by case, but adopting DOJ’s framework would shift much of the legal pressure from model training toward data acquisition and specific outputs.
    @xlr8harderThis sounds promising.

    25 Sources

    @AdamEisgrauSEISMIC for @OpenAI: @TheJusticeDept has filed a 20pg Statement w/ the SDNY affirming: training gen AI on © works is lawful fair use; the doctrine is vital to US interests; "dilution" is not cognizable harm" + mandating training data licensing would be "legally incorrect": 🔥
    @tszzlRT @AdamEisgrau: SEISMIC for @OpenAI: @TheJusticeDept has filed a 20pg Statement w/ the SDNY affirming: training gen AI on © works is lawfu…
    @stevesiSuper interesting.
    @MTSliveSITUATION DETECTED: The US government has sided with OpenAI against the New York Times. The DoJ says training an LLM on copyrighted works does not violate copyright law, and that treating it as infringement would hurt US science, prosperity, and national security.
    @ScobleizerRT @MTSlive: SITUATION DETECTED: The US government has sided with OpenAI against the New York Times. The DoJ says training an LLM on copyri…
    @AndrewCurran_The Trump administration filed a brief supporting OpenAI against the New York Times. The Department of Justice told the court that the United States has a strong interest in 'rejecting any argument that training LLMs on copyrighted texts violates copyright law,' including on national-security grounds. The filing also says training is 'extraordinarily transformative', thus is fair use, and does not violate copyright law.
    @ledwardsCorrect on all points.
    @MikeIsaacthe Department of Justice filed what it calls an "historic" letter of interest in the NYT vs OpenAI/MSFT lawsuit, supporting OpenAI. Trump admin argues it is in the "national interest" to support OAI in the copyright case. NYT sent us statement with vigorous pushback below:
    @rohanpaul_aiA massive win for OpenAI (and for AI training in general) for its legal case against New York Times. The U.S. govt just formally backed OpenAI’s claim that copyrighted-text training is fair use, partly on national-security grounds. This is Washington’s first formal intervention in the wider wave of copyright lawsuits over AI training, though the filing is advisory rather than binding on the court. The U.S. Dept of Justice filed a statement of interest of the US formally arguing in the OpenAI copyright litigation that training LLMs on copyrighted texts should generally qualify as fair use; That distinction still leaves separate copyright questions around how training data was acquired and whether particular outputs reproduce protected passages. The Justice dept separated acquiring material, training on it, and generating outputs, then focuses its argument specifically on copying at the training stage. It argues that training serves a different purpose from publishing an article because an LLM uses text to learn statistical relationships and generate new responses. For market harm, DOJ says training itself does not substitute for the original work, so later AI-generated competition should not automatically make the earlier training unlawful. The administration also warns that blanket licensing requirements could raise barriers for smaller AI companies and put U.S. developers at a disadvantage against foreign competitors. The court must still decide fair use case by case, but adopting DOJ’s framework would shift much of the legal pressure from model training toward data acquisition and specific outputs.
    @xlr8harderThis sounds promising.