DOJ Backs OpenAI in NYT Copyright Case Over AI Training

Published September 26, 2026 · by ALGERIATECH Editorial

🧭 Decision Radar

Relevance for Algeria
Low
▾

Algeria has no domestic AI foundation-model industry directly exposed to US copyright litigation, and Algerian copyright law operates under a separate legal framework, making this primarily an observational signal rather than a direct compliance concern.

Infrastructure Ready?
No
▾

This is a legal and regulatory development, not an infrastructure question; it has no direct bearing on Algeria’s technical readiness for anything.

Skills Available?
Not applicable
▾

No specific local skill gap is created or closed by this development, as it concerns US federal litigation strategy rather than a technology or implementation question.

Action Timeline
24+ months
▾

Any practical relevance to Algerian policy would only emerge if Algeria develops its own AI-training-data legal framework, a matter still far from active consideration locally.

Key Stakeholders
Ministry of Justice, Algerian publishers and content industries, ARPT (as a data/technology regulator)

Decision Type
Educational
▾

This is a global policy-signal article for readers tracking how major jurisdictions are resolving AI-copyright questions, with no immediate action required from Algerian institutions.

Quick Take: Algerian media organizations and policymakers should watch this case as an early indicator of how major jurisdictions will likely resolve AI-training copyright questions, since Algeria will eventually need its own position on whether local AI developers can train on Algerian-published content without licensing — but no immediate local action follows from this filing.

What the DOJ Actually Argued

The Justice Department’s brief, filed in Manhattan federal court, stated that “the United States has a strong interest in this court rejecting any argument that training LLMs on copyrighted texts violates copyright law,” citing scientific advancement and national-security considerations as part of that interest. The brief’s core legal argument is that training an AI model on copyrighted material is transformative enough to fall under fair use — the same doctrine that has historically protected activities like search-engine indexing, parody, and academic commentary from infringement claims.

Coverage from Tech Times of the same filing reports the DOJ specifically warned against restrictive fair-use rulings that would concentrate AI development power among the largest technology companies — the department’s argument being that only firms with the deepest pockets could afford to license training data at scale, effectively locking out smaller AI developers and researchers while primarily enriching legacy media companies through licensing fees rather than protecting individual creators.

Why the Case and the Timing Matter

The New York Times originally filed suit against OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023, alleging the companies scraped its archives without authorization to train ChatGPT and related models. The case has since become one of the highest-profile tests of whether AI training on copyrighted journalism constitutes infringement, with the outcome expected to influence a wave of similar suits from other publishers and content owners.

The DOJ’s intervention is notable because the federal government rarely files briefs in private copyright litigation between two companies. PYMNTS reports the filing referenced an executive order emphasizing American AI leadership globally, framing the copyright question explicitly as a matter of competitive positioning against other countries’ AI industries, not solely a private contract or intellectual-property dispute. The New York Times’ spokesperson Graham James criticized the DOJ’s position as favoring “trillion-dollar A.I. companies” over content creators, underscoring how directly the brief cuts against publisher interests.

What the Brief Does and Doesn’t Settle

It’s important to be precise about what this filing actually accomplishes. A DOJ brief carries significant persuasive weight — it signals the government’s institutional position and can influence how a judge weighs competing arguments — but it does not bind the court, decide the lawsuit, or establish a blanket rule that every AI training practice is automatically lawful. The presiding judge in the NYT case retains full discretion to rule against OpenAI and Microsoft despite the DOJ’s position, and the brief speaks only to the general question of whether training itself is transformative, not to specific factual disputes in this case, such as how the training data was obtained or whether outputs reproduce copyrighted text verbatim.

That distinction matters for how the broader AI industry should read this development: it is a strong signal of where federal policy is heading, and a real input into the pending ruling, but treating it as a settled legal outcome would overstate what a single amicus-style brief can deliver.

Follow AlgeriaTech on LinkedIn for professional tech analysis Follow on LinkedIn

Follow @AlgeriaTechNews on X for daily tech insights Follow on X

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the DOJ brief actually argue in the OpenAI copyright case?

The Justice Department argued that training large language models on copyrighted text is “extraordinarily transformative” and generally qualifies as fair use, while warning that restrictive rulings would concentrate AI development among the largest tech companies and primarily benefit legacy media through licensing fees.

Does the DOJ brief mean OpenAI has won the New York Times lawsuit?

No. The brief carries significant persuasive weight and signals the federal government’s position, but it does not bind the court or decide the case. The presiding judge retains full discretion, and the lawsuit — filed by the New York Times in December 2023 — remains unresolved.

Why did the US government intervene in a private copyright lawsuit?

The DOJ’s brief cited national-security and scientific-advancement interests, and referenced an executive order on American AI leadership, framing the copyright question as a matter of US competitiveness against other countries’ AI industries rather than solely a dispute between two private companies.