政策监管

The Trump administration has now formally put the U.S. government behind OpenAI’s core fair-use argument in its copyright fight with The New York Times. some of the most conclusive statements they said in their filed document. - “the ‘training of AI models on copyrighted material,’ in and of itself, ‘does not violate copyright laws.’” - “For all these reasons, the United States has a strong interest in this Court rejecting any argument that training LLMs on copyrighted texts violates copyright law.” - “The fourth fair use factor … supports the conclusion that OpenAI’s model training using New York Times articles is fair use.” - “The copying of protected text articles as part of training an LLM is a use of a different kind or character that is ‘transformative—spectacularly so.’” - “In sum, the use of copies to train LLMs is extraordinarily transformative.” “Rules of law that make it significantly more difficult to develop a robust AI industry in the United States therefore threaten national security and give a competitive advantage to foreign adversaries who are not so encumbered.” - “In this litigation, the New York Times seeks to narrow fair-use doctrine to exclude the training of OpenAI’s large language models (LLMs). That result would be inconsistent with basic copyright law principles and severely hamper ‘the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’” “But it would be problematic—and legally incorrect—to impose broad copyright liability that would generally render training of AI models impermissible without licensing.”

A massive win for OpenAI (and for AI training in general) for its legal case against New York Times. The U.S. govt just formally backed OpenAI’s claim that copyrighted-text training is fair use, partly on national-security grounds. This is Washington’s first formal intervention in the wider wave of copyright lawsuits over AI training, though the filing is advisory rather than binding on the court. The U.S. Dept of Justice filed a statement of interest of the US formally arguing in the OpenAI copyright litigation that training LLMs on copyrighted texts should generally qualify as fair use; That distinction still leaves separate copyright questions around how training data was acquired and whether particular outputs reproduce protected passages. The Justice dept separated acquiring material, training on it, and generating outputs, then focuses its argument specifically on copying at the training stage. It argues that training serves a different purpose from publishing an article because an LLM uses text to learn statistical relationships and generate new responses. For market harm, DOJ says training itself does not substitute for the original work, so later AI-generated competition should not automatically make the earlier training unlawful. The administration also warns that blanket licensing requirements could raise barriers for smaller AI companies and put U.S. developers at a disadvantage against foreign competitors. The court must still decide fair use case by case, but adopting DOJ’s framework would shift much of the legal pressure from model training toward data acquisition and specific outputs.