“(OpenAI even brazenly asked the British goverment to exempt them from copyright laws, wanting all the gain at none of the cost.)”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
OpenAI asked the British government to exempt it from copyright laws.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, The race between positive and negative applications of Generative AI is on – and not looking pretty, paragraph 14.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-the-race-between-positive-and-negative-799f03-a1
We recorded 8 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-29. The source may have been edited after 2024-03-29. 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)
From the speaker
- OpenAI
- asked the British goverment
- exempt them from copyright laws
Our interpretation
- In context, an exemption means permission to train on copyrighted works without the ordinary licensing requirement, not necessarily immunity from every copyright obligation.
- A claim that existing law already permits training is distinguishable from a request to change or waive the law.
- The target is the recent pre-post UK policy engagement described by the sentence, covering 2023 through publication.
- Brazenly and the attributed desire for all gain at no cost are evaluative language, not independently scored factual commitments.
Counts as supported if: A pre-post OpenAI submission or statement to UK authorities requests a copyright exemption or equivalent relaxation for model training.
Counts as contradicted if: The relevant request is affirmatively shown to have a materially different purpose, or a sufficiently complete record establishes that the attributed exemption request was not made.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
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 December 2023 submission says copyrighted material is needed and argues that training is already lawful. That does not itself establish a request for exemption. An explicit request appears in the 2025 consultation response, which is too late to support this post. The search did not establish a qualifying earlier request, but the identified submission alone cannot exclude every other communication.
Limitations
- The official submission required an accessible mirror.
- The statement does not identify a particular request.
- A loose political characterization and a specific legal request are different readings.
Evidence (3 items)
Context only: OpenAI; parliamentary submission reproduced by Developpez.net,
including copyright laws.
Why it matters here: The submission argues that existing copyright law permits training and discusses opt-outs and publisher agreements. Its copyright section does not explicitly request an exemption; the availability date refers to the original document's public reporting, not the mirror's upload.
- Publisher
- OpenAI; parliamentary submission reproduced by Developpez.net
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: The Guardian,
copyright law does not forbid training
Why it matters here: Contemporaneous reporting confirms the existing-law argument. That argument alone does not establish a request for a new exemption.
- Publisher
- The Guardian
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: OpenAI,
broad TDM exception
Why it matters here: This document explicitly advocates a broad text-and-data-mining exception. It falls after Marcus's post and cannot establish his historical assertion.
- Where
- Question 5, page 4
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
A dated pre-March 29, 2024 OpenAI communication requesting the exemption, or a sufficiently complete record identifying and definitively resolving the request Marcus meant.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, The race between positive and negative applications of Generative AI is on – and not looking pretty
(OpenAI even brazenly asked the British goverment to exempt them from copyright laws, wanting all the gain at none of the cost.)
- Where
- paragraph 14
- Published
- 2024-03-29
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-the-race-between-positive-and-negative-799f03-a1: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. 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-the-race-between-positive-and-negative-799f03-a1.