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
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
Why 9 Million Americans Have Left

The Growing American Exodus
Nearly 9 million Americans now live outside the United States—a number that rivals the population of several states and signals a profound shift in how people view the American dream. This mass migration isn’t confined to retirees or the wealthy. Thanks to remote work, digital nomad visas, and mounting pressures at home, young professionals, families, and business owners are increasingly joining the ranks of expats.

Rising Costs and Shrinking Wallets
Living in the US has become increasingly expensive. Weekly grocery bills topping $300 are not uncommon, and everyday items like coffee and beef have surged in price over the last year. Rent, utilities, and other essentials also continue to climb, leaving many Americans to cut meals or put off purchases just to make ends meet. In contrast, life in countries like Mexico or Costa Rica often costs just 50–60% of what it does in the US—without sacrificing comfort or quality.
Health Care Concerns Drive Migration
America’s health care system is a major trigger for relocation. Despite the fact that the US spends more per person on health care than any other country, millions struggle to access affordable treatment. Over half of Americans admit to delaying medical care due to cost, with households earning below $40,000 seeing this rate jump to 63%. Many expats point to countries such as Spain or Thailand, where health care is both affordable and accessible, as a major draw.

Seeking Safety Abroad
Public safety issues—especially violent crime and gun-related incidents—have made many Americans feel unsafe, even in their own communities. The 2024 Global Peace Index documents a decline in North America’s safety ratings, while families in major cities often prioritize teaching their children to avoid gun violence over simple street safety. In many overseas destinations, newly arrived American families report a significant improvement in their sense of security and peace of mind.
Tax Burdens and Bureaucracy
US tax laws extend abroad, requiring expats to file annual returns and comply with complicated rules through acts such as FATCA. For some, the burden of global tax compliance is so great that thousands relinquish their US citizenship each year simply to escape the paperwork and scrutiny.
The Digital Nomad Revolution
Remote work has unlocked new pathways for Americans. Over a quarter of all paid workdays in the US are now fully remote, and more than 40 countries offer digital nomad visas for foreign professionals. Many Americans are leveraging this opportunity to maintain their US incomes while cutting costs and upgrading their quality of life abroad.

Conclusion: Redefining the Dream
The mass departure of nearly 9 million Americans reveals deep cracks in what was once considered the land of opportunity. Escalating costs, inaccessible healthcare, safety concerns, and relentless bureaucracy have spurred a global search for better options. For millions, the modern American dream is no longer tied to a white-picket fence, but found in newfound freedom beyond America’s borders.
Business
Will Theaters Crush Streaming in Hollywood’s Next Act?

Hollywood is bracing for a pivotal comeback, and for movie lovers, it’s the kind of shake-up that could redefine the very culture of cinema. With the freshly merged Paramount-Skydance shaking up its strategy, CEO David Ellison’s announcement doesn’t just signal a change—it reignites the passion for moviegoing that built the magic of Hollywood in the first place.

Theatrical Experience Roars Back
Fans and insiders alike have felt the itch for more event movies. For years, streaming promised endless options, but fragmented attention left many longing for communal spectacle. Now, with Paramount-Skydance tripling its film output for the big screen, it’s clear: studio leaders believe there’s no substitute for the lights, the hush before the opening credits, and the collective thrill of reacting to Hollywood’s latest blockbusters. Ellison’s pivot away from streaming exclusives taps deep into what unites cinephiles—the lived experience of cinema as art and event, not just content.
Industry Pulse: From Crisis to Renaissance
On the financial front, the numbers are as electrifying as any plot twist. After years of doubt, the box office is roaring. AMC, the world’s largest theater chain, reports a staggering 26% spike in moviegoer attendance and 36% revenue growth in Q2 2025. That kind of momentum hasn’t been seen since the heyday of summer tentpoles—and it’s not just about more tickets sold. AMC’s strategy—premium screens, with IMAX and Dolby Cinema, curated concessions, and branded collectibles—has turned every new release into an event, driving per-customer profits up nearly 50% compared to pre-pandemic norms.
Blockbusters Lead the Culture
Forget the gloom of endless streaming drops; when films like Top Gun: Maverick, Mission: Impossible, Minecraft, and surprise hits like Weapons and Freakier Friday draw crowds, the industry—and movie fans—sit up and take notice. Movie-themed collectibles and concession innovations, from Barbie’s iconic pink car popcorn holders to anniversary tie-ins, have made each screening a moment worth remembering, blending nostalgia and discovery. The focus: high-impact, shared audience experiences that streaming can’t replicate.
Streaming’s Limits and Studio Strategy
Yes, streaming is still surging, but the tide may be turning. The biggest franchises, and the biggest cultural events, happen when audiences come together for a theatrical release. Paramount-Skydance’s shift signals to rivals that premium storytelling and box office spectacle are again at the center of Hollywood value creation. The result is not just higher profits for exhibitors like AMC, but a rebirth of movie-going as the ultimate destination for fans hungry for connection and cinematic adventure.

Future Forecast: Culture, Community, and Blockbuster Dreams
As PwC and others warn that box office totals may take years to fully catch up, movie lovers and industry leaders alike are betting that exclusive theatrical runs, enhanced viewing experiences, and fan-driven engagement are the ingredients for long-term recovery—and a new golden age. The Paramount-Skydance play is more than a business move; it’s a rallying cry for the art of the theatrical event. Expect more big bets, more surprises, and—finally—a long-overdue renaissance for the silver screen.
For those who believe in the power of cinema, it’s a thrilling second act—and the best seat in the house might be front and center once again.
Business
Why Are Influencers Getting $7K to Post About Israel?

Influencers are being paid as much as $7,000 per post by the Israeli government as part of an expansive and sophisticated digital propaganda campaign. This effort is designed to influence global public opinion—especially among younger social media users—about Israel’s actions in Gaza and to counter critical narratives about the ongoing humanitarian situation.

How Much Is Being Spent?
Recent reports confirm that Israel has dedicated more than $40 million this year to social media and digital influence campaigns, targeting popular platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. In addition to direct influencer payments, Israel is investing tens of millions more in paid ads, search engine placements, and contracts with major tech companies like Google and Meta to push pro-Israel content and challenge critical coverage of issues like the famine in Gaza.
What’s the Strategy?
- Influencer Contracts: Influencers are recruited—often with all-expenses-paid trips to Israel, highly managed experiences, and direct payments—to post content that improves Israel’s image.
- Ad Campaigns: State-backed ad buys show lively Gaza markets and restaurants to counter global reports of famine and humanitarian crisis.
- Narrative Management: These posts and ads often avoid overt propaganda. Instead, they use personal stories, emotional appeals, and “behind the scenes” glimpses intended to humanize Israel’s side of the conflict and create doubt about reports by the UN and humanitarian agencies.
- Amplification: Paid content is strategically promoted so it dominates news feeds and is picked up by news aggregators, Wikipedia editors, and even AI systems that rely on “trusted” digital sources.
Why Is This Happening Now?
The humanitarian situation in Gaza has generated increasing international criticism, especially after the UN classified parts of Gaza as experiencing famine. In this environment, digital public relations has become a primary front in Israel’s efforts to defend its policies and limit diplomatic fallout. By investing in social media influencers, Israel is adapting old-school propaganda strategies (“Hasbara”) to the era of algorithms and youth-driven content.
Why Does It Matter?
This campaign represents a major blurring of the lines between paid promotion, journalism, and activism. When governments pay high-profile influencers to shape social media narratives, it becomes harder for audiences—especially young people—to distinguish between authentic perspectives and sponsored messaging.

In short: Influencers are getting $7,000 per post because Israel is prioritizing social media as a battleground for public opinion, investing millions in shaping what global audiences see, hear, and believe about Gaza and the conflict.
- Business4 weeks ago
Disney Loses $3.87 Billion as Subscription Cancellations Surge After Kimmel Suspension
- Entertainment4 weeks ago
What the Deletion Frenzy Reveals in the David and Celeste Tragedy
- Entertainment4 weeks ago
Executive Producer Debut: How Celia Carver Created Festival Hit ‘Afterparty’
- Health4 weeks ago
Russia Claims 100% Success With New mRNA Cancer Vaccine
- Business3 weeks ago
Why Are Influencers Getting $7K to Post About Israel?
- Health4 weeks ago
Why Did Gen Z QUIT Drinking Alcohol?
- Advice4 weeks ago
How AI Is Forcing Everyone Into the Entrepreneur Game
- Entertainment3 weeks ago
Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman Split After 20 Years as Actress Files for Divorce