Introduction
The ongoing legal case between The Intercept and OpenAI highlights significant issues surrounding the use of copyrighted material in AI training, focusing on allegations of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violations. This case underscores the evolving legal landscape as it pertains to AI technologies and the protection of intellectual property rights.
Description
US District Judge Jed S [9]. Rakoff’s recent ruling allows The Intercept’s lawsuit against OpenAI to proceed, centering on allegations of improper removal of copyright management information (CMI) from articles used in training AI models like ChatGPT [7]. The Intercept claims that OpenAI unlawfully utilized its articles without permission, leading to tangible damages and asserting that this removal constitutes violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The lawsuit emphasizes the intentional omission of author names and other copyright details without consent, raising significant concerns about the protection of journalistic content in AI training processes [7].
In November 2024 [6], Judge Rakoff partially denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss the DMCA claims [6], noting that The Intercept had plausibly demonstrated harm through specific evidence, including identified training sets and URLs that supported its allegations [8]. He highlighted that the injury experienced by The Intercept aligns with recognized harms in copyright cases [3], suggesting a nuanced understanding of property rights in the context of AI technologies [7]. This decision marks a departure from previous judicial outcomes [9], creating a split in the Southern District of New York [6], as it contrasts with Judge Colleen McMahon’s earlier ruling in Raw Story Media v. OpenAI [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], where similar claims were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of harm.
While the court fully granted Microsoft’s motion to dismiss due to a lack of factual specificity and insufficient evidence linking Microsoft to the allegations, it allowed the DMCA 1202(b)(1) claim against OpenAI to continue [6]. This underscores significant implications for copyright owners in the context of AI development and deployment [8], as the judge noted that OpenAI should have recognized the potential infringement associated with the removal of copyright information.
As litigation surrounding AI training data intensifies [9], the focus on CMI presents a new avenue for plaintiffs [9], suggesting that companies developing large language models may need to reassess their content scraping and attribution strategies [9]. The ongoing case [9], identified as The Intercept Media Inc v [9]. OpenAI Inc [1] [2] [4] [5] [6] [9], in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [9], contributes to an evolving legal landscape concerning AI companies’ data usage practices [9]. This case adds to the increasing number of lawsuits challenging AI companies for using copyrighted material without authorization [5], highlighting the legal complexities surrounding the use of publicly available data and fair use principles in AI training practices.
Legal analysts note that this lawsuit marks a shift from traditional copyright infringement claims to a focus on DMCA violations [7], which could redefine how digital rights are managed in relation to AI [7]. The outcome may lead to clearer guidelines on fair use and stricter compliance measures for AI companies [7], potentially influencing licensing agreements and operational strategies within the industry [7]. The case has sparked mixed public reactions [7], with some advocating for stronger protections for content creators while others express concern over the potential impact on innovation [7]. The resolution of this legal dispute is poised to significantly affect both the AI sector and the broader legal framework governing intellectual property rights [7], shaping future standards for ethical data use in AI development [7].
Conclusion
The case between The Intercept and OpenAI is pivotal in shaping the future of AI development and intellectual property rights. It may lead to new guidelines and compliance measures for AI companies [7], influencing how digital rights are managed and potentially impacting innovation and content creator protections. The outcome will likely have far-reaching effects on the AI industry and the legal standards governing data use in AI training.
References
[1] https://www.mckoolsmith.com/newsroom-ailitigation-10
[2] https://www.eweek.com/news/openai-intercept-lawsuit/
[3] https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/international/new-york-judge-lets-openai-lawsuit-progress-in-win-for-us-news-organization-the-intercept/391359
[4] https://www.tradingview.com/news/reuters.com,2025:newsml_L6N3PB0PR:0-openai-must-face-part-of-intercept-lawsuit-over-ai-training/
[5] https://www.allaboutai.com/ai-news/openai-must-face-portions-of-intercept-lawsuit-over-ai-data-training/
[6] https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2025/02/20/judge-rakoffs-long-awaited-decision-allowing-dmca-1202b1-claim-to-proceed-in-intercept-v-openai-creates-sdny-split-with-judge-mcmahon-decision-in-raw-story/
[7] https://opentools.ai/news/new-york-court-allows-the-intercepts-lawsuit-against-openai-to-proceed
[8] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/intercepts-evidence-enough-to-advance-openai-claim-judge-says
[9] https://blogs.smartrules.com/openais-motion-to-dismiss-denied-in-key-dmca-case-against-the-intercept/
