Business

New York Times-ChatGPT lawsuit poses new legal threats to artificial intelligence on January 9, 2024 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

January 9, 2024

After a year of explosive growth, generative artificial intelligence (AI) may be facing its most significant legal threat yet from The New York Times.

The Times sued Microsoft and OpenAI, the company behind the popular ChatGPT tool, for copyright infringement shortly before the new year, alleging the companies impermissibly used millions of its articles to train their AI models.

The newspaper joins scores of writers and artists who have sued major technology companies in recent months for training AI on their copyrighted work without permission. Many of these lawsuits have hit road bumps in court.

However, experts believe The Times’s complaint is sharper than earlier AI-related copyright suits.

“I think they have learned from some of the previous losses,” Robert Brauneis, a professor of intellectual property law at the George Washington University Law School, told The Hill.

The Times lawsuit is “a little bit less scattershot in their causes of action,” Brauneis said.

“The attorneys here for the New York Times are careful to avoid just kind of throwing up everything against the wall and seeing what sticks there,” he added. “They’re really concentrated on what they think will stick.”

Transformation vs. Reproduction

Generative AI models require mass amounts of material for training. Large language models, like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Copilot, use the material they are trained on to predict what words are likely to follow a string of text to produce human-like responses.

Typically, these AI models are transformative in nature, said Shabbi Khan, co-chair for the Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and Robotics group at law firm Foley & Lardner.

“If you asked it a general query …. it doesn’t do a search and find the right passage and just reproduce the passage,” Kahn explained. “It will try to probabilistically create its own version of what needs to be said based on a pattern that it sort of picks up through parsing billions of words of content.”

However, in its suit against OpenAI and Microsoft, the Times alleges the AI models developed by the companies have “memorized” and can sometimes reproduce chunks of the newspaper’s articles.

“If individuals can access The Times’s highly valuable content through Defendants’ own products without having to pay for it and without having to navigate through The Times’s paywall, many will likely do so,” the lawsuit reads.

“Defendants’ unlawful conduct threatens to divert readers, including current and potential subscribers, away from The Times, thereby reducing the subscription, advertising, licensing, and affiliate revenues that fund The Times’s ability to continue producing its current level of groundbreaking journalism,” it adds.

In response to the lawsuit, an OpenAI spokesperson said in a statement that the company respects “the rights of content creators and owners” and is “committed to working with them to ensure they benefit from AI technology and new revenue models.”

Brauneis said some of the “most impressive” portions of the Times case are its repeated examples of the AI models simply regurgitating its material, nearly verbatim.

Earlier copyright lawsuits haven’t been able to show such direct reproductions of their material by the models, Khan noted.

In recent months, courts have dismissed claims from plaintiffs in similar lawsuits who argued that the outputs of particular AI models infringed on their copyright because they failed to show outputs that were substantially similar to their copyrighted work.

“I think [the Times] did a good job relative to what maybe other complaints have been put out in the past,” Khan told The Hill. “They provided multiple examples of basically snippets and quite frankly more than snippets, passages of the New York Times as reproductions.”

Khan suggested the court could decide that particular use cases of generative AI are not transformative enough and require companies to limit certain prompts or outputs to prevent AI models from reproducing copyrighted content.

While Brauneis similarly noted the issue could result in an injunction against the tech companies or damages for the Times, he also emphasized it is not an unsolvable issue for generative AI.

“I think that the companies will respond to that and develop filters that dramatically reproduce and reduce the incidence of that kind of output,” he said. “So, I don’t think that’s a long-term, huge problem for these companies.”

In an October response to an inquiry from the U.S. Copyright Office, OpenAI said it had developed measures to reduce the likelihood of “memorization” or verbatim repetition by its AI models, including removing duplications from its training data and teaching its models to decline prompts aimed at reproducing copyrighted works.

The company noted, however, “Because of the multitude of ways a user may ask questions, ChatGPT may not be perfect at understanding and declining every request aimed at getting outputs that may include some part of content the model was trained on.”

The AI model is also equipped with output filters that can block potentially violative content that is generated despite other safeguards, OpenAI said.

OpenAI also emphasized in a statement on Monday that memorization is a “rare bug” and alleged that the Times “intentionally manipulated prompts” in order to get ChatGPT to regurgitate its articles.

“Even when using such prompts, our models don’t typically behave the way The New York Times insinuates, which suggests they either instructed the model to regurgitate or cherry-picked their examples from many attempts,” the company said.

“Despite their claims, this misuse is not typical or allowed user activity, and is not a substitute for The New York Times,” it added. “Regardless, we are continually making our systems more resistant to adversarial attacks to regurgitate training data, and have already made much progress in our recent models.”

How the media, AI can shape each other

Carl Szabo, the vice president and general counsel of the tech industry group NetChoice, warned that lawsuits like the Times’ could stifle the industry.

“You’re gonna see a bunch of these efforts to kind of shakedown AI developers for money in a way that harms the public, that harms public access to information and kind of undermines the purpose of the Copyright Act, which is to promote human knowledge at the end of the day,” Szabo told The Hill.

Eventually, Khan said he thinks there will be a mechanism in place through which tech companies can obtain licenses to content, such as articles from the Times, for training their AI models.

OpenAI has already struck deals with The Associated Press and Axel Springer — a German media company that owns Politico, Business Insider and other publications — to use their content.

The Times also noted in its lawsuit that it reached out to Microsoft and OpenAI in April to raise intellectual property concerns and the possibility of an agreement, which OpenAI acknowledged in its statement about the case.

“Our ongoing conversations with the New York Times have been productive and moving forward constructively, so we are surprised and disappointed with this development,” a spokesperson said.

The OpenAI spokesperson added that the company is “hopeful that we will find a mutually beneficial way to work together.”

“I think most publishers will adopt that model because it provides for additional revenue to the company,” Khan told The Hill. “And we can see that because New York Times tried to enter into [an agreement]. So, there is a price that they’re willing to accept.”

Technology, Business After a year of explosive growth, generative artificial intelligence (AI) may be facing its most significant legal threat yet from The New York Times. The Times sued Microsoft and OpenAI, the company behind the popular ChatGPT tool, for copyright infringement shortly before the new year, alleging the companies impermissibly used millions of its articles to…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

1 day ago

July 11, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year

Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.

Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods

The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:

Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
Metals: Up 43%.
Leather products: Up 39%.
Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact

If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:

GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.

How Businesses Are Responding

A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans

The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.

For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.

Business

U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

Published

3 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians

Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift

Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy

Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
- Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
- Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
- Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations

Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.

Business

Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Published

3 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

The $200 Million Claim

In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.

When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.

Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances

Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:

Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”

She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique

Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:

The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
The decline of Instagram and Twitter
Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy

She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”

Political and Cultural Criticism

Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.

The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne

Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.

Public and Industry Reaction

Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.

Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Conclusion

Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.