“OpenAI’s problems with text and copyright started to become especially clear a year ago, when the New York Times sued them, and showed how close some of the outputs could be to some of the stories on their website.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
OpenAI's problems with text and copyright started to become especially clear a year ago, when the New York Times sued OpenAI and showed how close some of the outputs could be to some of the stories on its website.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Generative AI’s Continuing Copyright Problems, an Essay in Memory of Suchir Balaji, 1998 - 2024, paragraph 5.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-generative-ais-continuing-copyright-4201a4-a1
We recorded 5 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2024-12-14. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
Conditions
- some of the outputs (scope, stated by the speaker)
- some of the stories on their website (scope, stated by the speaker)
- started to become especially clear (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- a year ago
- the New York Times sued them
- showed how close some of the outputs could be
- some of the stories on their website
Our interpretation
- The December 2024 post refers to the December 2023 lawsuit.
- The checkable commitment is that the lawsuit presented examples of close textual reproduction. 'Especially clear' expresses the author's assessment of their significance.
- This does not assert that a court had established copyright infringement or that such outputs were typical.
Counts as supported if: A December 2023 court filing establishes that the Times sued OpenAI and presented outputs closely matching Times articles.
Counts as contradicted if: The court record contradicts the lawsuit's timing, identity of the defendants, or claimed presentation of matching outputs.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The dated evidence matches what the claim committed to, under the criteria frozen before grading.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The Times filed its complaint against OpenAI on December 27, 2023, and presented examples of GPT-4 reproducing substantial passages from its articles. That supports the concrete historical claim. OpenAI disputed how the examples were obtained and whether they represented normal use.
Limitations
- A complaint establishes allegations and presented evidence, not a judgment of infringement.
- The evidence does not establish how frequently ordinary users received such outputs.
Evidence (2 items)
Supports the claim: The New York Times Company; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
examples of memorization
Why it matters here: The complaint names OpenAI defendants and bears the December 27 filing date. Paragraphs 98–101 present article-specific reproduction examples and identify Exhibit J's additional comparisons.
- Publisher
- The New York Times Company; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: OpenAI defendants; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
Normal people
Why it matters here: OpenAI argued that the examples required extensive attempts, unusual prompts and supplied article passages. This later defense challenges representativeness, but does not negate the December filing or its presentation of matching outputs.
- Publisher
- OpenAI defendants; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Generative AI’s Continuing Copyright Problems, an Essay in Memory of Suchir Balaji, 1998 - 2024
OpenAI’s problems with text and copyright started to become especially clear a year ago, when the New York Times sued them, and showed how close some of the outputs could be to some of the stories on their website.
- Where
- paragraph 5
- Published
- 2024-12-14
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-generative-ais-continuing-copyright-4201a4-a1: Current. Outcome: Supported. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-generative-ais-continuing-copyright-4201a4-a1.