OpenAI sued by The Intercept, Raw Story, and AlterNet for copyright infringement | Technology

Lawsuits have been brought against OpenAI and Microsoft by news publishers, alleging that their generative artificial intelligence products violate copyright laws by illegally using journalists’ copyrighted works. The Intercept, Raw Story, and Alternet filed suit in federal court in Manhattan, seeking compensation for the infringement.

Media outlets claim that OpenAI and Microsoft plagiarized copyrighted articles to develop ChatGPT, a prominent generative AI tool. They argue that ChatGPT ignores copyright, lacks proper attribution, and fails to alert users when using journalists’ copyrighted work to generate responses.

Raw Story and AlterNet CEO John Byrne stated, “Raw Story believes that news organizations must challenge OpenAI for breaking copyright laws and profiting from journalists’ hard work.” They emphasized the importance of diverse news outlets and the negative impact of unchecked violations on the industry.

The Intercept’s lawsuit names OpenAI and Microsoft as defendants, while the joint lawsuit by Raw Story and AlterNet focuses solely on OpenAI. The complaints are similar, with all three media outlets represented by the law firm Loevy & Loevy.

Byrne clarified that the lawsuits from Raw Story and AlterNet do not involve Microsoft directly but stem from a partnership with MSN. Both OpenAI and Microsoft have yet to comment on the allegations.

The lawsuits accuse the defendants of using copyrighted material to train ChatGPT without proper attribution, violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The legal action is part of a series of lawsuits against OpenAI for alleged copyright infringement.

Concerns in the media industry about generative AI competing with traditional publishers have led to a wave of legal battles. The fear is that AI-generated content will erode advertising revenue and undermine the quality of online news.

While some news organizations have sued OpenAI, others like Axel Springer have opted to collaborate by providing access to copyrighted material in exchange for financial rewards. The lawsuits seek damages and profits, with the New York Times lawsuit aiming for significant monetary compensation.