The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to exciting new possibilities in how technology can interact with language, art, and media. Tools like ChatGPT are capable of generating text that sounds natural and human-like. These advancements are built by training AI on massive datasets, which often include books, articles, and online content. However, this method of development has triggered a growing legal debate: Is it acceptable to train AI using copyrighted material without asking permission or offering payment?
OpenAI is at the center of this global conversation in 2025. The company is facing several legal cases from media organizations, publishers, and authors who argue that their copyrighted work has been used unfairly to train AI systems. This battle has now become one of the most important legal fights in the history of modern technology.
In late 2023, The New York Times filed a major lawsuit against OpenAI and its partner Microsoft. The newspaper accused both companies of using its published articles—millions of them—to train AI models like ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Copilot without permission. The Times argued that its business, which depends on paid subscriptions, was being harmed because the AI could generate full or partial versions of its articles when asked.
OpenAI responded by saying that its use of publicly available data should fall under "fair use," a legal concept that allows limited use of copyrighted materials for things like education, criticism, or commentary. However, in March 2025, a federal judge decided the lawsuit could go forward. The court stated that if the claims were true, OpenAI could be violating copyright law in a serious way.
This case is especially important because it could set legal standards for how AI companies are allowed to use data in the future.
The New York Times is not the only organization raising concerns. In April 2025, media company Ziff Davis, which owns sites like IGN and PCMag, also filed a lawsuit against OpenAI. The company argued that its content was used in training despite being marked with instructions (in its robots.txt files) not to be copied by automated systems.
In Canada, another legal complaint was filed by several news organizations, including CBC and The Globe and Mail. These media outlets said their content was being used repeatedly and without consent to train AI models that could then reproduce similar material.
These cases show that concern over AI and copyright is not limited to one country or one company—it is becoming a worldwide issue.
The lawsuits have pushed governments to take a closer look at how current copyright laws apply to artificial intelligence. In April 2025, the Indian government formed a panel to review its Copyright Act of 1957. Indian publishers, including NDTV and Hindustan Times, also accused OpenAI of using their articles without permission.
In the European Union, lawmakers passed the AI Act in 2024, which includes new rules for AI developers. These rules will become fully active by August 2025 and require developers to give content creators the ability to “opt out” if they don’t want their work used for AI training. These changes show how legal systems are beginning to catch up with the fast pace of AI development.
A central issue in this battle is whether the way AI models are trained counts as “fair use.” Companies like OpenAI argue that the AI is doing something new with the content—that it transforms the material by learning patterns rather than copying the content itself. They compare it to how search engines scan and list websites.
Critics argue that the AI is not just learning general ideas—it can actually reproduce exact lines or passages from copyrighted materials. In these cases, it’s hard to claim that the work is being transformed. Instead, creators say it feels more like their work is being used without permission and payment, while the companies training the AI profit from it.
There is no clear answer yet. Lawyers and judges are divided, and different countries may take different positions. But one thing is certain: the outcome of these legal battles will have a major impact on the future of AI and creative rights.
In response to growing legal pressure, some AI companies have started signing deals with content creators. For example, OpenAI reached an agreement in 2024 with News Corp, the parent company of The Wall Street Journal, which gives OpenAI the right to use content from its publications legally.
However, many other organizations are choosing to go to court instead of signing contracts. The New York Times, for example, wants to use the legal system to set a strong example and protect its rights. These choices reflect a divide in how publishers are choosing to defend their work.
Beyond legal arguments, there is also a wider public conversation about the ethics of AI development. In April 2025, a group of global news organizations made a public statement calling on AI companies to act responsibly. They asked developers to get permission before using journalistic content and to make sure that credit is given where it’s due.
In the creative industries, hundreds of authors, filmmakers, and musicians have also urged governments to create strong rules that prevent AI companies from using their work without permission. Their main concern is that AI could replace their work or reduce the value of their skills.
This growing movement shows that people are worried not just about legal rights but also about fairness and the future of creative jobs.
The legal and ethical questions surrounding AI and copyright are becoming more urgent. As AI tools like ChatGPT become more powerful, the way they are trained—and the data they are trained on—matters more than ever. On one side are the technology companies that argue they are creating new, useful tools. On the other side are authors, journalists, and artists who want to protect the value of their original work.
Courts, governments, and companies are now being forced to make important decisions that could shape the future of the tech and creative industries alike. As legal cases continue and new rules are written, the world is watching closely to see how this battle between innovation and intellectual property unfolds.