.png){kind=logo}
By March 10, 2025, the court battle between OpenAI and The New York Times had become a landmark battle over the influence of artificial intelligence on the media. The Times sued in December 2023, accusing OpenAI of copyright infringement for supposedly using its ChatGPT to supply its models with enormous amounts of its articles, more than 66 million words, to train its models without permission.
OpenAI counters that the same application constitutes fair use, triggering an argument that weighs media viability against technological advancement. This article breaks down the stakes under separate sub-headings, examining whether journalism is at risk of being a casualty of the advance of AI.
At the heart of the dispute lies the Times’ assertion that OpenAI and Microsoft, a co-defendant, illegally mined its archives to fuel ChatGPT. Court filings reveal ChatGPT reproducing near-verbatim excerpts from paywalled stories, like a 2012 piece on taxi medallions, when prompted. The Times argues this threatens its $1 billion annual digital revenue, as AI tools could siphon readers from its 10 million subscribers.
The Times' business model is subscription-based, with digital revenue rising 13% to $709 million in 2024. AI chatbots like ChatGPT, which can summarize or replicate articles, pose a threat to survival. Proof shows ChatGPT evading paywalls by sending full-text answers, a bug that can shatter the 70% of payers who make exclusivity possible.
OpenAI positions its mission as a public good, contending that limiting access to information impedes progress. In its 2025 filings, it mentions a $10 billion economic impact with generative AI, where technology such as ChatGPT is used for education and research. The firm cites partnerships, e.g., in 2024 with The Atlantic, providing licensing fees for the use of content, proposing a model of coexistence.
Critics point out the Times turned down similar proposals, demanding control over its intellectual property. This impasse challenges whether the social benefits of AI are worth reauthoring regulations that safeguard journalism's 150-year history or whether tech titans have to pay more for their raw materials.
The case's future hinges on the doctrine of fair use, aided by rulings like the 2021 Google v. Oracle court decision in support of transformative use. Nevertheless, the Times argues that ChatGPT's answers compete against its articles head-on, as opposed to indexing them, tipping the scales in favor of OpenAI. A 2025 win for the Times could compel AI companies to license material, increasing prices, Bloomberg estimates $1 billion a year for OpenAI alone, and hampering innovation.
On the other hand, an OpenAI victory could greenlight mass scraping, forcing newsrooms to scramble to adjust. Aside from this lawsuit, 17 other publishers, including The Intercept, have entered the battle, pointing toward a larger reckoning that may redraw media-tech lines.
Beyond revenue, the dispute exposes journalism’s fragility in an AI-driven world. The Times employs 1,900 journalists, whose subscriber-dollar-fueled investigative breaking news, like 2024's election corruption scandal, are at stake if AI eats away at that. Headcount cuts are on the table if that happens; Gannett cut 6% of its staff in 2024 under comparable pressures. But others envision a possibility: AI can enhance reporting, which Reuters uses to sort data for articles. The danger is that journalism turns into collateral damage, its quality sacrificed to the speed of AI, unless a legal or marketplace solution, such as collective bargaining for content costs, materializes.
The conflict between OpenAI and the New York Times in 2025 is exemplified by AI's unrelenting advance and journalism's beleaguered stand. Copyright, revenue, and innovation are just some of the stakes in the lawsuit, which will test whether newsrooms can coexist with tech giants or collapse under their weight.
AI's legal leash and journalism's lifeline will be shaped by a ruling, which is expected by late 2025. The question remains for the time being: Will progress use journalism as collateral, or can a balance keep both? The answer has not yet been written down, but its effect will last for decades.
