The archive provides Chinese and English research texts. Translations may be AI-assisted and may not yet have received independent human review. Consult the original-language sources alongside them.
OpenAI filed a publicly redacted brief arguing that pretraining and browsing uses were protected by fair use and other defences, asking the court to grant its motion.
View full image ↗Opening page of the source document associated with “OpenAI memorandum supporting summary judgment, NYT ECF 1496”. Original page layout retained; follow the source for the full text.
Image source: OpenAI defendants; rights remain with the original rights holders.
Source · OpenAI memorandum supporting summary judgment, NYT ECF 1496 ↗What changed
OpenAI filed a publicly redacted brief arguing that pretraining and browsing uses were protected by fair use and other defences, asking the court to grant its motion.
The defendant’s legal arguments, not a finding of fair use in this case. The plaintiffs’ contemporaneous brief remains to be read.
Editorial research question
Editorial interpretation: copyright disputes over journalism and generated outputs provide institutional context for creative labour, with parties’ positions and procedural limits retained.
This is an editorial interpretation or question, separate from factual statements.
Evidence & sources
OpenAI filed a publicly redacted brief arguing that pretraining and browsing uses were protected by fair use and other defences, asking the court to grant its motion.
SRC-0154PDF cover, contents, and pages 31–33: conclusion, signature, and filing date; publicly redacted version.
OpenAI defendants · EN · 2026-09-04
Case
Related documents
DOC-0142OpenAI memorandum supporting summary judgment, NYT ECF 1496Cite this record
ANTI-AI ARCHIVE. “OpenAI files brief supporting summary judgment.” evt-0164. Include this page’s URL and your access date when citing.