The AI copyright war expands: Seattle Times and Newsday sue OpenAI and Microsoft

The Seattle Times and Newsday are the latest news organizations to sue OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing the AI giants of copyright infringement for using their content without permission. The two publishers, both respected regional newsrooms, are now part of a growing legal battle between the media industry and the companies behind ChatGPT and other generative AI tools. Their claims are straightforward: their articles were used to train AI models without authorization or compensation, a practice that strikes at the very foundation of how modern AI systems are built.

The lawsuits, reported by Engadget, add two more names to a list that already includes some of the biggest players in journalism. The New York Times sued both companies in late 2023, and a range of authors, comedians, and visual artists have filed similar claims. What makes the news industry's cases particularly significant is the volume and value of the content involved. Newsrooms produce millions of copyrighted articles each year, and their archives represent decades of reporting that AI models can absorb, summarize, and mimic. For publishers, that is not just a legal issue; it is an existential one, because AI tools are increasingly competing with news organizations for readers, subscriptions, and advertising revenue.

The two AI companies have taken different approaches to dealing with publishers. OpenAI has signed licensing agreements with outlets like Axel Springer and the Associated Press, paying for access to their content in an effort to legitimize its training data. Microsoft, which has invested billions in OpenAI and provides the cloud infrastructure that powers its models, has also faced scrutiny over its role in the AI supply chain. The new lawsuits suggest that not every publisher is willing to negotiate a deal, and that some see litigation as the only way to force a fair outcome. The Seattle Times and Newsday are betting that the courts will agree with them, and their decision to sue rather than license is a signal that the media industry is far from united on how to handle the AI revolution.

For decision-makers in media and tech, the outcome of these cases could have far-reaching consequences. If the courts rule that using copyrighted material to train AI models without permission is infringement, AI companies may need to overhaul their data sourcing practices and pay substantial licensing fees. That would raise the cost of building AI models and could give publishers a new revenue stream at a time when the news business is struggling to adapt to the digital economy. It would also create a clear precedent for other content creators, from musicians to software developers, who have watched their work being absorbed into AI systems with little or no compensation.

On the other hand, if the AI companies prevail, it could set a precedent that allows them to continue scraping the open web with limited liability. That would be a major blow to publishers who argue that their work is being used to build products that compete with them for attention and advertising dollars. The legal arguments are complex, touching on fair use, transformative use, and the nature of training data. OpenAI has previously argued that its use of publicly available materials is protected by fair use, a position that has drawn sharp criticism from content owners. The courts have yet to provide clear guidance, and these new lawsuits add to the pressure on judges to define the boundaries of AI training in a way that balances innovation with intellectual property rights.

The timing is also notable. AI companies are racing to secure high-quality data sources as the demand for more capable models grows. News articles are particularly valuable because they are well-written, fact-checked, and cover a wide range of topics, making them ideal training material. But the legal uncertainty around that data is becoming a business risk. If publishers can successfully demand payment, the cost of training data could rise significantly, affecting not just OpenAI and Microsoft but every company building large language models. That includes startups, open-source projects, and tech giants alike, all of whom rely on vast amounts of text to train their systems.

For the Seattle Times and Newsday, the decision to sue is a calculated move to protect their intellectual property and their future. They are not alone in feeling that AI companies have taken something valuable without asking. The broader industry is watching closely, because the outcome of these cases will likely shape how AI companies and content creators interact for years to come. Whether through licensing, opt-out mechanisms, or court-ordered damages, the relationship between AI and journalism is being renegotiated in real time, and these two lawsuits are the latest evidence that the old rules no longer apply.