Cases / LAW & AI
Did the court hold that OpenAI's training on New York Times works was lawful fair use?
What the record establishes
No — not established. The ruling in this record is a dismissal-stage procedural decision. It does not decide the fair-use question on the merits.
What this is built on
Pleaded allegation (not established fact)
The New York Times's pleaded allegation — a contested claim in the pleadings, not an established fact.
Inspect the recorded basis →Technical detail
epistemic state: contested
Public statement (not independent verification)
OpenAI's public fair-use position — its own stated position, recorded with unknown status, not an independent finding.
Inspect the recorded basis →Technical detail
epistemic state: unknown
procedural (Rule 12(b)(6) motion-to-dismiss disposition; not a merits determination)
Judicial treatment — the court did not address this question in this record, and the record draws no claim-support links between these sources.
Inspect the recorded basis →Technical detail
epistemic state: not_addressed · ClaimSupportEdges: 0
Inspect the public source material
These routes come from existing public source and record bindings. A source being present or associated does not establish that it supports a particular claim, independently verifies its contents, or changes its standing.
The New York Times complaint
OpenAI public fair-use statement
S.D.N.Y. Rule 12(b)(6) opinion
What this does not establish
The Times's allegation is a pleaded claim, not a proven fact. OpenAI's public statement is its own position, not an independent finding. The judicial ruling is procedural (a Rule 12(b)(6) motion-to-dismiss disposition), not a merits ruling on fair use. This record does not assert that any one of these three supports or contradicts another.
How do you know?
Every basis item above is read from a specific governed artifact:
- counterpedia@0f571bf59f6da6e698f1b93061f19902f7fab2cf:lib/counterpedia/pilots/nyt-openai-litigation-0001.content.json (admitted via contentV02Store)
- counterpedia@0f571bf59f6da6e698f1b93061f19902f7fab2cf:lib/counterpedia/pilots/nyt-openai-litigation-0001.content.json (admitted via contentV02Store)
- counterpedia@0f571bf59f6da6e698f1b93061f19902f7fab2cf:lib/counterpedia/pilots/nyt-openai-litigation-0001.content.json (admitted via contentV02Store)
Proof status: VERIFIED