Jump to content

In re OpenAI Inc Copyright Infringement Litigation

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation[1]
Court U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York[1]
Docket 25-md-3143 (SHS) (OTW); the September 17 brief also bears docket 1:23-cv-11195 and identifies four other related actions.[1]
Filed Not identified in the sources reviewed.
Judge(s) Sidney H. Stein signed the October 15, 2026 publisher-action orders.[2][3]
Plaintiffs News publishers including The New York Times, Daily News plaintiffs, Ziff Davis, the Center for Investigative Reporting and The Intercept, for the brief discussed here.[1]
Defendants OpenAI entities and Microsoft, for the news-publisher claims discussed here.[1]
Case type Copyright litigation[1]
Claims / issues Copyright infringement, fair use, and copyright-management information; coverage below includes the news publishers’ September 17 brief and October 15 procedural orders.[1]
Status October 15, 2026: Times Publishing action stayed pending summary-judgment rulings in other active MDL cases; USA Today plaintiffs directed to address a possible stay by October 30.[2][3] October 30, 2026: Representatives Raskin, Nadler and Johnson moved for leave to submit a proposed amicus brief responding to DOJ’s statement of interest; a later leave decision or merits ruling has not been verified.[4]

In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation is federal copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York. The September 17, 2026 news-plaintiff brief identifies the multidistrict docket and five related civil actions. The coverage below addresses that brief and subsequent publisher-action stay orders.[1]

September 17, 2026 summary-judgment brief

On September 17, 2026, news publishers filed a redacted combined summary-judgment brief in the litigation. The publishers argue that copying journalism for commercial AI products is not fair use, citing internal communications and traffic data to support their market-substitution argument. They seek rulings on specified infringement theories and parts of their copyright-management-information claim.[1][5]

These are litigants’ arguments, not findings of infringement. The brief limits its requested summary judgment on grounding and outputs to Microsoft while an OpenAI sanctions motion remains pending. Microsoft told TheWrap that its uses are transformative and Copilot does not substitute for publishers’ journalism; OpenAI also maintains a fair-use defense.[1][5]

October 15, 2026 publisher-action stay orders

On October 15, 2026, Judge Sidney H. Stein signed the parties’ stipulation staying all proceedings and deadlines in Times Publishing Co. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., No. 1:26-cv-08082, pending resolution of summary-judgment motions in the other active MDL cases. The parties must submit a joint status report within 30 days of those rulings; any party may seek to lift the stay for good cause.[2]

In a separate order that day, Stein directed the plaintiffs in USA Today Co., Inc. et al. v. OpenAI Foundation et al., No. 1:26-cv-08892, to show cause by October 30 why their action should not also be stayed pending those summary-judgment rulings. Any defendants’ response is due November 6.[3]

October 29, 2026 Authors Alliance proposed amicus brief

Authors Alliance submitted a proposed amicus brief supporting the defendants’ summary-judgment motions, filed as ECF 2328-1 on October 29, 2026. The proposed brief addresses whether competition from new, noninfringing works constitutes “market dilution” harm under the fourth fair-use factor. It argues that copyright protects markets for protected expression rather than insulating authors from lawful competition in the same subjects or genres.[6]

The organization argues that the scale of AI-generated competition does not change the kind of injury copyright recognizes and that adopting the theory could burden scholarship, criticism and other new authorship. It takes no position on the other questions presented by the motions. These are the proposed amicus’s arguments; acceptance of the brief and a later ruling on them have not been verified.[6]

October 30, 2026 House Judiciary Democrats’ proposed amicus brief

Representatives Jamie Raskin, Jerrold Nadler and Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. moved for leave to file an amicus brief responding to the United States’ statement of interest. Their proposed brief argues that national security does not supply an additional fair-use factor or a broad AI-training exemption, and urges the court to give DOJ’s position little or no weight.[4]

The representatives also argue that DOJ’s position lacks demonstrated Copyright Office consultation and discounts copyright’s economic incentives and cultural value. These are their arguments, rather than judicial findings. The combined filing includes an unsigned proposed order granting leave; it does not establish that the court accepted the brief or resolved fair use.[4]


Further October 30 news

Further October 31 news

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 News Plaintiffs’ Combined Summary Judgment Brief (redacted), September 17, 2026, ECF 1587-1, pp. 1–3, 80 and cover.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Joint stipulation and order, ECF 2104, October 15, 2026, pp. 1–4, via CourtListener.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Order to show cause, ECF 2105, October 15, 2026, p. 1, via CourtListener.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 S.D.N.Y., ECF 2404 (motion for leave), 2404-1 (proposed brief), and 2404-2 (unsigned proposed order), filed October 30, 2026; combined PDF, 19 pages.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 A.J. Katz, TheWrap, “OpenAI’s Head of ChatGPT Warned Publishers Faced an ‘Existential Threat’ in Unsealed Docs,” September 17, 2026.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Authors Alliance, proposed amicus brief, ECF 2328-1, filed October 29, 2026, 25 PDF pages.
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=In_re_OpenAI_Inc_Copyright_Infringement_Litigation&oldid=8003"