In brief

The Justice Department says training AI on copyrighted work can be fair use. This may influence the case, but the judge still makes the legal decision.

New to this? Read it in simple words
  • On September 1, the US Justice Department sent a statement to a federal court. It supported OpenAI in the New York Times copyright case.
  • The department says training AI on copyrighted work can sometimes be fair use. The New York Times says AI companies should pay for the news they use.
  • The statement may influence the legal debate. But it has not changed the law.
  • The judge still decides the case, and the legal answer is still open. A lower court decision may later be appealed.
Words to know
Fair use
A part of US law that allows some use of copyrighted work without permission.
Training
Teaching an AI model by showing it huge amounts of data.
Appeal
Asking a higher court to change a lower court’s decision.

On September 1, the Justice Department sent a statement to the federal court. It supported OpenAI’s view that training a large AI model on copyrighted work can sometimes be fair use. Fair use is a part of US law that allows some use without direct permission.

The government says AI training can bring public, scientific, and economic benefits. The New York Times says AI companies should pay for the news used to build products that may compete with publishers. Both sides are asking the court to balance new technology and the rights of creators.

Sources12

LEGAL PATH 04
The US government gave its view, but the court will decide the case.

The government statement may influence the fair-use debate. It is not a court decision or one rule for every AI training dataset.

This is not a court decision

A government statement can guide the discussion, but it does not control the judge. It also does not prove that every data set or every AI answer is legal. The court must study the facts of this exact case.

Several questions are involved. The court may ask how the articles were collected, why copies were made, what the model can repeat, and whether AI answers reduce the market for the original news. Training and final answers may be treated differently.

Sources12

Why the result may take time

Some AI companies already pay publishers for data. These deals show that payment is possible, but they do not prove that the law always requires it. In the same way, the usefulness of AI does not remove the cost of making good journalism.

A lower court decision may later be appealed. Other cases about books, images, music, and software may also shape the rules. The government has chosen a side in this argument, but the legal answer is still open.

Sources12

Sources

Every fact in this story comes from the sources below. Open them to check our work.

  1. 1
    Primary source · September 1, 2026Statement of Interest of the United States U.S. District Court via CourtListener
  2. 2
    Research · September 2, 2026Trump administration backs OpenAI in New York Times copyright case Associated Press
How we checked this story

We read the Justice Department’s court filing and an Associated Press report that included the publisher’s response. We explain the difference between a government opinion and a judge’s decision. We do not predict who will win the case.