Chinese and English archive texts include AI-assisted translations, not independently human-reviewed. 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 defenses, asking the court to grant its motion.
What changed
OpenAI filed a publicly redacted brief arguing that pretraining and browsing uses were protected by fair use and other defenses, 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 labor, 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 defenses, 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.