New York Times sues OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement claiming ‘millions of articles’ were used to train chatbots: Lawsuit says companies should be held responsible for ‘billions of dollars in damages’

The New York Times filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft alleging copyright infringement, claiming the tech companies used their articles to train chatbots that now threaten the jobs of journalist.

The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan on Wednesday, said the companies illegally fed ‘millions of articles’ to Microsoft’s Bing Chat and OpenAI’s ChatGPT to develop their products.  

‘This action seeks to hold them responsible for the billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages that they owe for the unlawful copying and use of The Times’s uniquely valuable works,’ said the complaint.

The Times argued that OpenAI and Microsoft artificial intelligence programs use large-language models that were developed by copying their articles with a particular emphasis.

The lawsuit said, ‘Defendants seek to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism by using it to build substitutive products without permission or payment.’

In the complaint, The New York Times also alleged Microsoft’s Bing search index copies their online content and gives it to users without permission from the publication and deprives them of subscription, licensing, advertising and affiliate revenue.

The Times said using their work has been extremely lucrative for the companies, and they have tried to negotiate with the companies to ensure they received their fair share while working with them to develop their technology but have been unable to reach an agreement.

‘Microsoft’s deployment of Times-trained LLMs throughout its product line helped boost its market capitalization by a trillion dollars in the past year alone. And OpenAI’s release of ChatGPT has driven its valuation to as high as $90 billion,’ said the lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, The Times claimed OpenAI and Microsoft have said their conduct is protected as ‘fair use’ because their use of the content is for a new ‘transformative’ purpose.

The Times argues, ‘There is nothing “transformative” about using The Times’s content without payment to create products that substitute for The Times and steal audiences away from it.’