GPT-4o: The court's dismissal of Raw Story Media's case against OpenAI on "standing" grounds may indeed reflect a legal misinterpretation, particularly regarding copyright law and the DMCA’s provision

Asking AI services: Please read the article “Raw Deal: The OpenAI Court Got It Wrong“ and tell me whether you agree that the OpenAI court got it wrong? Explain your views and provide additional arguments and evidence

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Based on Peter Csathy’s argument in “Raw Deal: The OpenAI Court Got It Wrong,” I agree with his view that the court's dismissal of Raw Story Media's case against OpenAI on "standing" grounds may indeed reflect a legal misinterpretation, particularly regarding copyright law and the DMCA’s provisions. Here’s an analysis of why this ruling seems flawed and how it might set a precedent for generative AI content disputes.

Key Points from Csathy’s Argument:

1. Misapplication of Legal Standards: Csathy argues that Judge McMahon’s reliance on the TransUnion v. Ramirez decision (focused on the Fair Credit Reporting Act) was misplaced. In copyright law, unlicensed copying can constitute a direct harm, especially when it relates to DMCA Section 1202(b)(i), which centers on protecting the integrity of copyright management information (CMI). The court’s requirement for additional "distribution" or tangible "harm" does not align with the Copyright Act’s broader approach, which Csathy interprets as allowing claims based on the removal of CMI alone.

2. Market Harm: Csathy asserts that OpenAI’s actions directly impact Raw Story Media's market potential to license its content for training purposes. As major AI firms, including OpenAI, sign multi-million dollar licensing deals with content providers, the unlicensed use of Raw Story’s content eliminates their opportunity for similar agreements. Csathy connects this argument to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on fair use in the Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case, where harm to a potential licensing market weakened the fair use defense.

3. Global Intellectual Property Standards: The DMCA’s Section 1202(b)(i) aligns with “moral rights” principles in international treaties, like those established by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), that the U.S. supports. By enforcing integrity and attribution rights, Section 1202(b)(i) implicitly recognizes that harm can stem from removing these elements, potentially affecting both the work's value and the creator’s reputation.

4. Minimal Burden of Standing: Csathy notes that establishing standing generally requires a low threshold, and that Raw Story’s claims should have survived this dismissal stage given the direct assertions of harm.

Additional Arguments Supporting Csathy’s Position:

• Judicial Precedent on Intellectual Property: Other cases show that courts frequently uphold standing on the basis of market substitution or lost revenue potential in copyright infringement disputes, particularly where unauthorized digital use is concerned.

• Erosion of Copyright Enforcement: If courts continue to dismiss cases based on the need for concrete harm, content creators might struggle to enforce copyright against large AI companies using unlicensed data. This would risk diminishing the market for licensed content, potentially harming both small and large content creators and incentivizing unlicensed scraping.

• Chilling Effect on Licensing Agreements: Allowing unlicensed use of content without consequence could undermine existing and future licensing models between AI developers and content providers, as companies like OpenAI might choose unlicensed data if legal enforcement becomes challenging.

In summary, the court’s ruling seems to overlook key aspects of copyright law and DMCA protections, potentially impacting creators' rights and the economic structures supporting content licensing for AI models.


Grok’s answer:
The article "Raw Deal: The OpenAI Court Got It Wrong" argues that the dismissal of the lawsuit by Raw Story Media against OpenAI was incorrect on legal grounds. Here's an analysis of the points made by the author and my perspective on whether the court indeed got it wrong:

Legal Analysis:

1. Standing and Injury:

   • Author's View: Judge McMahon dismissed the case claiming Raw Story Media failed to show concrete harm, misapplying a precedent from TransUnion v. Ramirez. The author argues that under copyright law, the act of unlicensed copying itself should be considered sufficient harm for standing purposes.

   • Additional Perspective: There's merit to the argument that copyright infringement inherently includes an injury by undermining the copyright holder's exclusive rights. However, courts often require some form of actual or imminent harm beyond mere infringement. While copying for AI training might not directly lead to traditional forms of distribution or financial loss, it could be argued that it affects the market for licensing content, which is a form of economic harm.

2. Misapplication of DMCA Provisions:

   • Author's View: The court confused DMCA Section 1202(b)(i) with Section 1202(b)(iii), where the former doesn't require "distribution" to establish a violation but merely the removal or alteration of copyright management information.

   • Additional Argument: This point is compelling. If the court did indeed conflate these sections, it represents a legal error. Section 1202(b)(i) specifically targets the integrity and attribution of works, making the removal of CMI actionable without needing distribution to occur.

3. Moral Rights and International Treaties:

   • Author's View: The DMCA provision in question aligns with moral rights as per the WIPO Treaty, emphasizing the importance of creator attribution, which should suffice for establishing harm.

   • Further Argument: While the U.S. has less emphasis on moral rights compared to civil law countries, the recognition of these rights within the context of the DMCA could support the argument that harm was indeed present when copyright management information was stripped.

4. Market Harm:

   • Author's View: The use of Raw Story's content for training AI models harms potential licensing markets, paralleling the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in the Warhol case regarding market substitution.

   • Evidence and Argument: The author's point about market substitution is particularly strong given the trend of AI companies licensing content for training. If AI developers could freely use copyrighted content without licensing, this would indeed diminish the market value of such content for licensing purposes.

Conclusion:

• Agreement with Article: There are substantial arguments suggesting that the court might have erred in dismissing the case, particularly in how it interpreted the necessary harm for standing and possibly in misunderstanding or misapplying DMCA provisions.

• Additional Considerations:

  • Fair Use Defense: While not directly addressed in the ruling, fair use could be a significant defense for OpenAI. However, this wasn't the basis for dismissal, which was focused on standing.

  • Precedent and Legal Evolution: The intersection of AI and copyright law is relatively new territory, and courts are still shaping how existing laws apply. The decision might reflect caution or a conservative approach to evolving legal concepts.

• Court of Appeals: If this case progresses to an appeal, the appellate court might indeed reverse or remand for further consideration based on the arguments about the nature of harm in copyright law and the specific application of DMCA provisions.

In summary, while the initial dismissal might have focused on a narrow interpretation of standing, the broader implications for copyright in the context of AI training suggest that there are valid grounds for reconsideration or reversal upon appeal.


Claude’s answer:
Let me analyze this legal situation carefully. While noting that I'm not providing legal advice, I can engage with the legal reasoning presented in the article and expand on it.

Based on the article and my understanding of copyright law, I tend to agree with Peter Csathy's analysis that Judge McMahon's dismissal on standing grounds appears problematic for several key reasons:

1. Misapplication of TransUnion Precedent:

• The court appears to have inappropriately applied standards from TransUnion v. Ramirez (a Fair Credit Reporting Act case) to a copyright context

• Copyright law has its own well-established framework for determining standing and harm

• The unique statutory scheme of the DMCA creates specific protections and rights that differ fundamentally from consumer credit reporting

2. DMCA Section 1202(b)(i) Specific Requirements:

• The article correctly points out that Section 1202(b)(i) focuses on the removal/alteration of copyright management information itself

• The mere act of removing this information can constitute a violation, without requiring additional proof of distribution or concrete harm

• This aligns with the DMCA's purpose of protecting digital rights management

3. Market Harm Consideration: A particularly compelling argument not fully developed in the article relates to the emerging AI training data market:

• OpenAI and other AI companies are actively entering into licensing deals (e.g., $250M OpenAI-News Corp deal)

• This demonstrates a real, existing market for training data licensing

• Raw Story's exclusion from this market represents a tangible, quantifiable harm

• This type of market harm is precisely what courts traditionally recognize in copyright cases

4. Additional Supporting Arguments: Beyond the article's points, I would add:

• The standing threshold in federal courts is traditionally low at the pleading stage

• Copyright law has historically recognized even potential market harm as sufficient for standing

• The transformation of content for AI training purposes could be seen as creating a derivative work, which is an exclusive right of copyright holders

5. Procedural Context: The dismissal at this early stage seems particularly problematic because:

• Standing questions should generally be resolved in favor of the plaintiff at the pleading stage

• Fair use and other defenses are typically fact-intensive inquiries better suited for summary judgment or trial

• The existence of an emerging market for AI training data licenses provides concrete evidence of economic value and potential harm

6. International Context: While not mentioned in the article, it's worth noting that:

• Many other jurisdictions are currently wrestling with similar questions about AI training data

• The EU's approach to AI regulation explicitly addresses training data rights

• International harmony in copyright protection (especially regarding moral rights) supports a broader view of standing

This analysis suggests Judge McMahon's dismissal may have set an unnecessarily high barrier for copyright holders to protect their rights in the AI era. The decision, if upheld, could have significant implications for content creators' ability to participate in and benefit from the emerging AI training data market.

Perplexity’s answer:
After analyzing the article "Raw Deal: The OpenAI Court Got It Wrong" by Peter Csathy, I agree with the author's assessment that the court made an error in dismissing Raw Story Media's lawsuit against OpenAI. Here's an explanation of why the court's decision appears to be flawed, along with additional arguments and evidence:

Legal Basis for Standing

The court's dismissal of the case on "standing" grounds seems to be based on a misapplication of legal precedent. Judge Colleen McMahon cited the TransUnion v. Ramirez case to justify her conclusion that Raw Story Media failed to allege sufficient "concrete" harm. However, this comparison is problematic for several reasons:

1. Different legal contexts: The TransUnion case dealt with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, while Raw Story Media's lawsuit is based on the U.S. Copyright Act. These different contexts have distinct requirements for establishing harm.

2. Copyright infringement as inherent harm: Under copyright law, unlicensed copying alone is typically sufficient to allege actionable injury or harm. This is a fundamental principle of copyright protection that doesn't require additional proof of concrete harm at the pleading stage.

3. DMCA Section 1202(b)(i): The specific provision relevant to this case (DMCA Section 1202(b)(i)) focuses on the removal or alteration of copyright management information. The violation occurs through the act itself, not necessarily through subsequent distribution.

Additional Arguments

1. Moral rights and international obligations: The DMCA provision in question (Section 1202(b)(i)) was implemented partly to align U.S. law with international copyright treaties, specifically the WIPO Copyright Treaty. This provision protects the integrity of copyrighted works and creator attribution, concepts known as "moral rights" in many jurisdictions.

2. Market harm: The court appears to have overlooked the potential market harm to Raw Story Media. OpenAI's alleged use of Raw Story's content for training purposes could directly impact Raw Story's ability to license its content to AI companies, a growing and potentially lucrative market.

3. Recent precedent on market substitution: The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the Andy Warhol case emphasized the importance of market substitution in fair use analysis. This principle could be relevant to Raw Story's case, as OpenAI's use might substitute for potential licensing opportunities.

4. Low bar for standing: Generally, the threshold for establishing standing in federal courts is relatively low at the pleading stage. The court's dismissal on standing grounds seems to set an unusually high bar for copyright cases.

Additional Evidence

1. Industry practices: Many major AI companies, including OpenAI, have entered into licensing agreements with news organizations for training data. For example, OpenAI's $250 million deal with News Corp demonstrates the value of such content in the AI training market.

2. Other ongoing lawsuits: The article mentions several other lawsuits against AI companies by content creators and media organizations. The outcomes of these cases could provide further insight into how courts interpret copyright law in the context of AI training data.

3. DMCA's legislative intent: An examination of the legislative history behind the DMCA, particularly Section 1202, could provide additional support for the argument that removal of copyright management information is intended to be an actionable offense in itself.

In conclusion, the court's decision to dismiss Raw Story Media's lawsuit against OpenAI appears to be based on a misapplication of legal precedent and a misunderstanding of copyright law principles. The arguments presented by Peter Csathy, along with additional considerations of market harm, international copyright obligations, and recent Supreme Court precedent, suggest that the case merits further examination and that the dismissal may indeed be overturned on appeal.