Three News Organizations Sue OpenAI and Microsoft Over Copyright Infringement

  • Three news organizations sue OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, alleging removal of metadata from AI models.
  • Lawsuits claim ChatGPT reproduces copyrighted works without attribution, impacting authors and publications.
  • Legal battles highlight ongoing challenges in AI development and copyright protection, with broader implications for technology and content industries.

In a legal escalation within the realm of artificial intelligence (AI) development, three prominent news organizations—The Intercept, Raw Story, and AlterNet—have filed lawsuits against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging copyright infringement. The lawsuits, filed separately in the Southern District of New York but represented by the same legal team, accuse the tech giants of reproducing copyrighted journalistic works without adequate attribution or preservation of copyright information.

Allegations of Copyright Infringement

The core accusation leveled by The Intercept, Raw Story, and AlterNet revolves around the training of AI models, particularly focusing on OpenAI’s ChatGPT. The plaintiffs assert that during the training process, essential copyright metadata such as author names, article titles, and terms of use information were removed or not adequately preserved. Consequently, when ChatGPT generates responses, it often reproduces verbatim or near-verbatim copyrighted content without attributing the original authors or acknowledging the copyright status of the material.

Plaintiffs’ AllegationsOpenAI’s Response
Reproduction of copyrighted works without attributionOpenAI allegedly removes copyright metadata during training
Failure to communicate copyright information in generated responsesOpenAI argues that its models do not intentionally violate copyrights

Claims of Intentional Oversight

The lawsuits by Raw Story and AlterNet go further, suggesting that both OpenAI and Microsoft were cognizant of potential copyright issues but failed to adequately address them. The plaintiffs assert that the companies may have intentionally overlooked the importance of preserving copyright information to maintain the popularity and revenue potential of ChatGPT.

Legal Precedents and Disputed Allegations

This legal confrontation is not the first of its kind. Similar disputes have arisen in the past, including a lawsuit in California involving comedian Sarah Silverman and other authors. In that case, while a judge dismissed one aspect of the claim related to intentional removal of copyright data, the broader allegation of copyright infringement against OpenAI still stands.

Broader Implications and Industry Response

The lawsuits against OpenAI and Microsoft underscore the broader challenges faced by AI developers and content creators in navigating copyright laws in the digital age. As AI technology becomes increasingly integrated into various sectors, including journalism and creative industries, the legal implications of copyright infringement remain a contentious issue.

Ongoing Legal Battles in the AI Space

The legal actions against OpenAI and Microsoft are part of a broader trend of copyright litigation within the AI development space. Notably, Getty Images is currently suing Stability AI for training models using protected images, while Universal Music Group has filed a lawsuit against Anthropic, alleging unauthorized distribution and recreation of copyrighted lyrics without proper attribution.


The lawsuits filed by The Intercept, Raw Story, and AlterNet signal a growing concern among content creators regarding the protection of intellectual property in the age of AI. As these legal battles unfold, they are likely to shape the future landscape of AI development and copyright law, with significant implications for both technology companies and content creators alike.

Quick Poll



South Africa’s primary source of financial tools and information

Contact Us


Rateweb strives to keep its information accurate and up to date. This information may be different than what you see when you visit a financial institution, service provider or specific product’s site. All financial products, shopping products and services are presented without warranty. When evaluating offers, please review the financial institution’s Terms and Conditions.

Rateweb is not a financial service provider and should in no way be seen as one. In compiling the articles for our website due caution was exercised in an attempt to gather information from reliable and accurate sources. The articles are of a general nature and do not purport to offer specialised and or personalised financial or investment advice. Neither the author, nor the publisher, will accept any responsibility for losses, omissions, errors, fortunes or misfortunes that may be suffered by any person that acts or refrains from acting as a result of these articles.