Why The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft, what it could mean for AI and copyright
Context- The New York Times (NYT) has initiated a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, the developers of ChatGPT and other AI platforms, alleging copyright infringement. The claim asserts that these companies extensively use NYT’s original content without compensation to develop their models and generate responses. The lawsuit accuses them of exploiting The Times’s significant investment in journalism to create alternative products that divert its audience. Notably, Microsoft is a major investor in OpenAI.
This legal action could potentially shape the future of intellectual property rights in the era of generative AI platforms. It also reflects the broader discussion on the impact of such platforms on the creative industry. These platforms rely on the work of original content creators, which is then processed by an algorithm and presented as new information by the AI systems.
Earlier in the year, OpenAI faced a similar lawsuit from two American authors who alleged that their works were improperly used to “train” ChatGPT. This case is seen as a class action proposal.
What is NYT’s main contention against OpenAI and Microsoft?
- The New York Times (NYT) has filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in Manhattan, alleging that millions of its articles were used to train automated chatbots. These chatbots are now seen as competitors to the news outlet as a source of reliable information.
- In April, NYT had approached Microsoft and OpenAI to discuss concerns about the use of its intellectual property and to explore a possible resolution, which could include a commercial agreement and “technological guardrails” around generative AI products. However, these discussions did not lead to a resolution.
- The lawsuit further alleges that OpenAI and Microsoft’s large language models, which power ChatGPT and Copilot, can generate outputs that recite NYT content verbatim, closely summarize it, and mimic its expressive style.
- This is claimed to undermine and damage the Times’ relationship with its readers and deprive it of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue.
- The lawsuit emphasizes the potential harm to the Times’ brand through AI “hallucination”, a phenomenon where chatbots respond with incorrect information that is then wrongly attributed to a source. In August, NYT blocked OpenAI’s web crawler, preventing the company from using its content to train its AI models.
AI and IP rights
- Generative AI platforms like ChatGPT and Google’s Bard have sparked a discussion on intellectual property rights concerning original content on the internet. The responses generated by these AI platforms are based on millions of pieces of textual content uploaded online by creators, including news publishers.
- The music industry is also resisting the use of AI. For example, Universal Music Group has requested streaming services like Spotify to prevent developers from using its content to train AI bots to create new songs.
- This debate is intensifying at a time when many countries, including India, have outdated copyright laws that need to be reevaluated in light of the rise of AI. In India, for instance, creative works are governed by the Copyright Act of 1957.
- The Act’s definition of an “author” includes any literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work that is computer-generated, attributing authorship to the person who instigates the creation of the work.
- However, this definition does not consider that AI systems do not independently generate information. They are only as effective as the base dataset they are trained on, which is composed of copyrighted work produced by other authors.
Conclusion- The advent of generative AI platforms has ignited a significant debate on intellectual property rights and the use of original content. The lawsuit filed by The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft exemplifies the growing tension between content creators and AI developers. This issue extends beyond news publishers to other creative industries, including music.
The current legal frameworks, such as India’s Copyright Act of 1957, are outdated and do not adequately address the complexities introduced by AI technologies. As AI systems rely heavily on existing copyrighted works for training, it’s clear that a reevaluation of these laws is necessary to ensure fair use of content and the continued innovation of AI systems. This case serves as a reminder of the urgent need for a comprehensive legal and ethical framework that addresses the unique challenges posed by AI in the digital age.
