Introduction
The evolving legal landscape surrounding AI-generated works and copyright law is becoming increasingly significant. Recent court cases, such as those involving The New York Times and OpenAI, highlight the complexities and potential implications for copyright infringement claims related to generative AI. These cases underscore the ongoing debate about the authorship of AI-generated content and the application of fair use doctrine.
Description
The recent developments in the Thaler case highlight significant implications for the authorship of AI-generated works and potential future copyright infringement claims involving generative AI [3]. The D.C [3]. Court of Appeals acknowledged that copyright registration is possible for AI-generated works if there is sufficient human intervention [3], such as creative prompts [3]. This aligns with the Copyright Office’s 2023 guidance [3], which clarifies that while machines cannot be copyright authors [3], works created by humans using machines are copyrightable [3].
A federal judge has allowed a copyright lawsuit from The New York Times against OpenAI to proceed [4], rejecting the tech company’s request to dismiss the case [4]. The lawsuit alleges that OpenAI exploited the newspaper’s content without permission or payment to train its AI service [4], ChatGPT [4]. While the judge narrowed the scope of the lawsuit [4], the main copyright infringement claims remain active [4]. The legal team for the publishers argues that OpenAI’s use of their articles constitutes a violation of copyright laws [4], while OpenAI maintains that its data collection practices fall under the fair use doctrine [4], which permits certain uses of copyrighted material for research and commentary [4].
Recent district court rulings indicate that infringement claims related to the use of copyrighted materials for training AI are viable [3]. In The New York Times Co [1] [3]. v. Microsoft Corp. [1] [2] [3], the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss claims of direct and indirect copyright infringement [3], finding that the Times adequately alleged direct infringement through OpenAI’s use of its copyrighted works [3]. However, the court granted Microsoft’s motions to dismiss the section 1202(b)(1) claims against it in this case [1], as well as in two other actions. Additionally, while OpenAI’s motions to dismiss the section 1202(b)(1) claims in the Daily News and CIR actions were denied [1], the court dismissed the defendants’ motions to dismiss the 1202(b)(3) claims in all three actions without prejudice [1].
In Concord Music Group [2] [3], Inc. v. Anthropic PBS [3], the court denied a preliminary injunction sought by music publishers to prevent Anthropic from using copyrighted song lyrics to train its AI model, Claude [2] [3]. The court determined that the publishers failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from the use of their lyrics for training purposes [2], noting that the alleged reputational harm was more related to the outputs generated by Claude rather than the training itself [2]. The publishers did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims regarding the impact on licensing markets or their ability to negotiate future licenses [2]. Furthermore, the court dismissed the publishers’ claims for contributory infringement and vicarious liability concerning outputs from Claude [2], allowing for amendments [2].
As multiple AI-related cases are pending, 2025 is poised to be a pivotal year for AI and copyright law [3]. The outcome of the New York Times case could significantly impact both the media and AI industries [4], as publishers fear that AI tools like ChatGPT may reduce traffic to their websites [4], leading to decreased advertising revenue [4]. Congressional action may be necessary to address the complex issues arising in this area [3], while courts continue to navigate these challenges [3]. The legal debate centers on whether the use of copyrighted material by AI companies is transformative and whether it substitutes for the original content [4], with the principles of fair use and market substitution at the forefront of these discussions.
Conclusion
The ongoing legal battles and court decisions in cases involving AI and copyright law are likely to have far-reaching effects on both the media and technology sectors. As the courts continue to interpret and apply existing copyright laws to AI-generated content, the outcomes of these cases will shape the future of copyright protection and fair use in the context of AI. The resolution of these issues may require legislative intervention to address the unique challenges posed by generative AI, ensuring a balance between innovation and the protection of intellectual property rights.
References
[1] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/03/rounding-up-recent-copyright-and-ai-rulings.htm
[2] https://barrysookman.com/2025/03/30/ai-copyright-litigation-recent-legal-developments/
[3] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/when-man-beats-machine-the-latest-in-1170672/
[4] https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/nx-s1-5288157/new-york-times-openai-copyright-case-goes-forward
