Current public entry
The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation and OpenAI
Copyright litigation over alleged use of New York Times works in generative-AI systems, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
This entry renders a governed record. It shows what its sources establish, what they do not, and who admitted it. Inspect
INSPECTCounterpedia Check · this entryInspect what can currently be checked
- Record structure
- governed entry shape present
- Source custody
- 3 retained captures available
- Digest binding
- source digests displayed and inspectable
- Admission
counterpedia.intake-authority/v1- DAGR decision
- not applicable to this historical admission
- SRS receipt
- not available
- ARCS verification
- pinned structural report available
- Authenticity
not_evaluated- Signature
not_evaluated- Truth
- not a verifier finding
The New York Times Company sued Microsoft and OpenAI, alleging that its copyrighted works were used without authorization to develop and operate generative-AI products. This record carries the plaintiff's allegation, the defendants' public position, and a later procedural ruling as three distinct source roles. It does not merge them into a single conclusion, and it does not treat any of them as established fact.
Allegation
Defendants' unlawful use of The Times's work to create artificial-intelligence products that compete with it threatens The Times's ability to provide that service.[1]
Carried as the plaintiff's pleaded position. It is not established here as fact.
INSPECTSource Check · The New York Times complaintcustody + bytes
- Capture
- exact-byte capture available
- Captured
- Aug 14, 2026
- Digest
sha256:5eb30edbdedf0af0…- Origin
- storage.courtlistener.com
- Authenticity
not_evaluated- Signature
not_evaluated
Positions of the parties
Training AI models using publicly available internet materials is fair use.[2]
Carried as OpenAI's public statement. It is not independent verification, and it is not established here as fact.
INSPECTSource Check · OpenAI public statementarchive + custody
- Capture
- archived Wayback capture available
- Captured
- Aug 15, 2026
- Digest
sha256:f886a23fe9ad8c38…- Origin
- web.archive.org
- Live origin
- not relied upon here
- Authenticity
not_evaluated
Procedural history
A later district-court opinion granted and denied portions of the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions.[3] The carried ruling narrows certain claims. It does not decide the fair-use question on the merits.
INSPECTSource Check · S.D.N.Y. ECF No. 514custody + scope
- Capture
- exact-byte capture available
- Captured
- Aug 15, 2026
- Digest
sha256:1944d092241e9891…- Origin
- storage.courtlistener.com
- Role
- judicial procedural treatment
- Fair-use merits
- not addressed in the carried ruling
- Truth
- not a verifier finding
Not established on this record
- Why
- The carried judicial source is a dismissal-stage procedural ruling. It does not reach a fair-use holding on the merits.
- What stands instead
- The court narrowed certain claims at the pleading stage. That is the only judicial proposition this record carries.
- Reopens if
- A later merits-stage ruling on the fair-use question enters the record.
- Bound to
- ECF No. 514
Refused does not mean false. It means this conclusion does not currently hold on this record. Open the full refusal →
References
- The New York Times Company complaint.
- OpenAI public fair-use statement.
- S.D.N.Y. Rule 12(b)(6) opinion, ECF No. 514.
Documentary sources
5 associated documentary sources
Documentary association is not citation, claim support, admission, or verification. It records only that a governed owner-class writer accepted this source as materially belonging to this entry’s documentary record for the stated role and relevance basis. It does not establish, confirm, or back any statement made in this entry and carries no standing or authenticity finding.
- Documentary associationsource:nyt-openai:no-s09-cooper-grimmelmann-memorization-analysisTechnical context
Relevance basis: Governed editorial determination
- Documentary associationsource:nyt-openai:no-s03-judicial-opinionSubsequent development
Relevance basis: Governed editorial determination
- Documentary associationsource:nyt-openai:no-s01-plaintiff-complaintPrimary record
Relevance basis: Governed editorial determination
- Documentary associationsource:nyt-openai:no-s02-defendant-statementActor / entity context
Relevance basis: Governed editorial determination
- Documentary associationsource:nyt-openai:no-s10-freeman-et-al-memorization-analysisTechnical context
Relevance basis: Governed editorial determination
- Edition
- 1
- Supersedes
- none
- Decision
- admit
- Admitting authority
- counterpedia.intake-authority/v1
- Renderer
- Counterpedia ArticleV02 · presentation only
- Policy
- not separately bound on this historical intake
- Proposal digest
- sha256:3208e01d31747d44…
- Source bundle
- sha256:cde58448384131d3…
- Verify report
- sha256:bd7f03df6e4ab5ec…
Admitted under Counterpedia's own intake authority; an external-authority transition is a named, pending step. The renderer does not decide standing, and independent verification checks structure, not truth.
Edition history: this is edition 1 and it declares no superseded predecessor. Decision and standing history: not available on this pilot record. The comparison below is a changed-input proof over declared research inputs. It is not edition history.
Changed-input comparison · not edition history
A real changed-input proof, not a rewritten history
Before snapshot
2 sources
NO-S01 + NO-S02
Judicial treatment: not_in_declared_snapshot
Expanded snapshot
3 sources
NO-S01 + NO-S02 + NO-S03
Judicial treatment: not_addressed
Changed result paths: source_count, represented_roles, judicial_treatment_state.
Both are declared research-input snapshots. They are not “what Counterpedia believed” at two historical moments, and a changed result does not mean the prior snapshot was wrong.
Loading source reading…