New York: A New York federal judge on Thursday dismissed a copyright lawsuit filed by news outlets Raw Story and AlterNet against artificial intelligence leader OpenAI, which alleged that the company improperly used their articles to train its large language models, including ChatGPT. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the news outlets failed to demonstrate sufficient harm to sustain the lawsuit, though she left open the possibility for them to amend their complaint, even while expressing “skepticism” about their ability to “allege a cognizable injury.”
The case began in February when Raw Story and AlterNet claimed that OpenAI had utilized thousands of their articles without permission to develop its AI systems. According to the plaintiffs, ChatGPT replicates their copyrighted material when prompted, raising issues about unauthorized use of their content. Raw Story, which acquired AlterNet in 2018, argued that this unlicensed use undercut their rights and protections as content creators. Attorney Matt Topic, representing Raw Story, stated, “We are certain we can address the concerns the court identified through an amended complaint.”
Despite dismissing the complaint, Judge McMahon acknowledged the broader context of the lawsuit, emphasizing that the real issue lies not in the alleged removal of copyright management information (CMI) from the articles but in OpenAI’s unlicensed use of the content without compensating the original creators. “Let us be clear about what is really at stake here,” McMahon stated, explaining that the plaintiffs seek redress for OpenAI’s unlicensed usage of their content in developing ChatGPT.
Also Read | Jewish Students Attacked During Pro-Israel Rally at DePaul University
This suit is part of a wider wave of copyright disputes targeting OpenAI and other tech giants, filed by various content creators, including authors, visual artists, and music publishers. The first media outlet to challenge OpenAI was The New York Times, which launched a similar lawsuit last December. However, unlike other cases, Raw Story and AlterNet focused on the removal of CMI without claiming direct copyright infringement, which Judge McMahon found insufficient to establish actionable harm.
Also Read | Biden’s Immigration Initiative for Immigrant Spouses Faces Legal Setback
Judge McMahon concluded that the type of harm alleged in this case does not reach the threshold necessary to uphold the suit. “Whether there is another statute or legal theory that does elevate this type of harm remains to be seen,” she remarked, leaving open the possibility of future legal interpretations but confirming that such a question is “not before the Court today.”
