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
Building a 10 Million Army: One Leader’s Mission to Save Tomorrow

Sustainability is often spoken about as if it belongs only to scientists, policy experts, or environmental activists. On the Roselyn Omaka Show, Otto Cannon makes the case that it belongs to everyone. His message is both urgent and deeply human: sustainability is not just about the environment, but about creating a world where people, planet, and profit exist in balance.
Cannon’s mission is striking in its scale. He wants to build what he calls a global army of 10 million sustainability leaders—people across industries and communities who choose to think beyond short-term gains and take responsibility for the future they are helping shape.
My biggest mission is to raise a 10 million global army of sustainability leaders.
Otto’s understanding of this work did not begin in a conference room. It began in childhood, shaped by a father who taught him to see the world’s problems as personal assignments. That early influence instilled in him the belief that real leadership means stepping forward, identifying what is broken, and dedicating yourself to fixing it.

That mindset later became deeply personal. In one of the interview’s most emotional moments, Cannon shares how the death of his dog after swallowing a plastic bottle cap changed his life. What might have seemed like an isolated tragedy became, for him, a doorway into a much larger truth: waste is never just waste when it destroys ecosystems, harms wildlife, and threatens the future.
Instead of turning away, he turned pain into action. Through his work, he helped build a recycling company that processed over 10,000 tons of plastic and supported tree-planting efforts that have already reached more than 500,000 trees. His story reflects the broader idea of sustainability leadership, which is commonly framed as the integration of environmental, social, and economic responsibility into real-world decision-making.
What makes Cannon’s perspective especially compelling is the way he challenges common misconceptions. He argues that sustainability is too often boxed into environmental language alone, when in reality it applies to every sector—fashion, construction, energy, transportation, manufacturing, and beyond. This broader understanding aligns with current sustainability leadership thinking, which emphasizes systems, collaboration, and long-term value creation across sectors.
Profit should never come at the expense of people or the planet.
That belief is central to everything Cannon describes. For him, sustainability is not anti-business. It is about designing business, innovation, and progress in a way that does not leave harm behind for future generations. A solution that helps today but creates a deeper problem tomorrow, he argues, is not truly a solution at all.

This is also the thinking behind the Global Sustainability Summit and Awards in London, where Cannon brings together leaders from government, business, and civil society to share ideas, showcase innovation, and inspire action. Cross-sector collaboration is widely recognized as a core part of effective sustainability work, especially when the goal is cultural and systemic change rather than isolated projects.
The power of Cannon’s message lies in its accessibility. He is not calling only on policymakers or executives. He is speaking to creators, founders, farmers, designers, builders, and everyday professionals—anyone who has influence over materials, waste, systems, sourcing, or the choices that shape modern life.
By the end of the conversation, one image lingers: the idea that one person is a drop of water, but many drops together can become a wave. That is the future Otto Cannon is working toward—not a movement powered by one voice, but one built by millions who decide that sustainability is not optional, but necessary.
Business
GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT RETURNS FOR ITS 5TH EDITION AT THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT – HOUSE OF LORDS, PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Theme: “People, Planet, and Profit in the Age of AI and Innovation”
London, United Kingdom — The Global Sustainability Summit (GSS) is officially back for its landmark 5th Edition, continuing its legacy as one of the leading international platforms driving sustainable development, climate action, ethical investment, innovation, and global collaboration.

Convened annually at the prestigious British Parliament, House of Lords, Palace of Westminster, by Ambassador Canon Chinenem Otto, the Summit has, over the last four years, successfully fostered international dialogue and partnerships that have contributed to the advancement of global sustainability goals, the establishment of sustainability-focused ministries, departments and policy structures across national and subnational governments, and the attraction of major investors into sustainable development projects, corporations and emerging economies.
This year’s summit, themed “People, Planet, and Profit in the Age of AI and Innovation,” will explore how emerging technologies, responsible leadership, sustainable finance, innovation, and global partnerships can shape a more inclusive, resilient and environmentally conscious future.

The 5th Edition promises to be the most impactful yet, bringing together world leaders, policymakers, diplomats, investors, academics, innovators, climate experts and youth leaders from across the globe to discuss actionable solutions toward achieving a sustainable and equitable future.
Among the distinguished speakers, delegates and honorees already lined up for the Summit are:
• His Excellency Mallam AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq — Executive Governor of Kwara State, Nigeria and Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum
• His Excellency Senator Prince Bassey Otu — Executive Governor of Cross River State, Nigeria
• Ambassador Patricia Espinosa Cantellano — Former Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Former Foreign Minister of Mexico

• Lord Marvin Rees, Baron Rees of Easton OBE — Member of the House of Lords, United Kingdom
• Hon. Neema K. Lugangira — Secretary-General of Women Political Leaders (WPL), Brussels and Former Member of Parliament
• Her Excellency Dr. Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah — President of the Republic of Namibia
• His Excellency Nangolo Mbumba — Former President of Namibia
• Former President of Tanzania
• Her Excellency Ambassador Professor Olufolake AbdulRazaq — First Lady of Kwara State, Nigeria and Chairperson of Nigeria Governors’ Spouses Forum
• Your Excellency Dr. Dikko Umar Radda, PhD, CON — Executive Governor of Katsina State and Chairman of the Northwest Governors Forum, Nigeria
• Hon. Sam Shafiishuna Nujoma — Governor of Khomas Region, Namibia

• H.E. Mr. Veiccoh Nghiwete — High Commissioner of the Republic of Namibia to the United Kingdom
• Her Excellency Ms. Macenje “Che Che” Mazoka — High Commissioner of Zambia to the United Kingdom
• Ms. Danielle Newman — Partner Lead, ICT, World Economic Forum
• Leanne Elliott Young — Co-founder, Institute of Digital Fashion & CommuneEast
• Ms. Chloe Russell — Producer & Presenter, Art, Science and Nature
• Professor Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger — University of Cambridge & University of Waterloo
• Dr. Alexandra R. Harrington — IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL)
• Professor Payam Akhavan — Massey College, University of Toronto
• Mr. Mallai C. E. Sathya — President, Dravida Vetri Kazhagam and International Movement for Tamil Culture Asia

The Summit will feature high-level panel discussions, strategic investment conversations, sustainability awards, policy dialogues, innovation showcases, youth engagement sessions and international networking opportunities focused on climate resilience, ethical financing, food-water-energy sustainability, circular economy, artificial intelligence, diplomacy and sustainable development.
Speaking ahead of the Summit, Convener Ambassador Canon Chinenem Otto noted:
“As the world rapidly evolves through artificial intelligence and technological innovation, we must ensure that sustainability remains people-centered, environmentally responsible and economically inclusive. The Global Sustainability Summit continues to serve as a bridge connecting governments, institutions, innovators and investors to accelerate practical sustainability solutions globally. Our fifth edition is not only a celebration of progress made over the years, but also a renewed call for global collaboration and actionable impact toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and Net Zero ambitions.”
The Global Sustainability Summit continues to position itself as a catalyst for transformative partnerships and sustainable global progress, reinforcing the urgent need for collective action toward a more resilient and sustainable future.
More announcements regarding additional speakers, partners and summit activities will be unveiled in the coming weeks.
Business
What the Michael Biopic Means for Every Indie Filmmaker

The Michael Jackson biopic Michael is more than celebrity drama; it is a real-time lesson in how legal decisions can quietly rewrite a story that millions of people will see. You do not need a $200M budget for the same forces—contracts, settlements, and rights issues—to shape or even erase key parts of your own work.

What Happened to Michael
The film Michael originally included a third act that addressed the 1993 child sexual abuse allegations and their impact on Jackson’s life and career. Trade reports say this version showed investigators at Neverland Ranch and dramatized the scandal as a turning point in the story. After cameras rolled, lawyers for the Jackson estate realized there was a clause in the settlement with accuser Jordan Chandler that barred any depiction or mention of him in a movie.
Because of that old agreement, the filmmakers had to remove all references to Chandler and rework the ending so the story stopped years earlier, in the late 1980s at Jackson’s commercial peak.
According to reporting, this meant roughly 22 days of reshoots, costing around 10–15 million dollars and pushing the total budget over 200 million.
Meanwhile, actress Kat Graham confirmed her portrayal of Diana Ross was cut for “legal considerations,” showing how likeness and approval issues can wipe out an entire character even after filming.
For audiences, the result is a movie that intentionally avoids one of the most controversial chapters of Jackson’s life, which some critics argue makes the portrait feel incomplete or selectively curated.
The Hidden Power of Contracts and Rights
The key detail in the Michael story is that a contract signed decades ago could dictate what present-day filmmakers are allowed to show. That settlement clause did not just affect the people who signed it; it effectively controlled the narrative of a big-budget film made years later. This is how legal documents become invisible co-authors: they quietly set boundaries around what your story can and cannot include.
Creators face similar invisible lines with:
- Life-rights and defamation: If you dramatize real people, especially in a negative light, they can claim defamation or invasion of privacy if your portrayal is inaccurate or harmful.
- Copyright and trademarks: Unlicensed music, clips, logos, or artwork can trigger copyright or trademark claims that block distribution or force expensive changes.
- Distribution contracts: Some deals give distributors the right to re-edit, retitle, or repackage your work without your approval unless you negotiate otherwise.
Legal commentary warns that fictionalizing real events and people carries heightened risk because audiences tend to connect your dramatization back to actual individuals. That risk does not disappear just because you are “small” or “indie”; impact, not audience size, usually determines exposure.
Why This Matters for Indie Filmmakers and Creators
Independent filmmakers often choose the indie route precisely to maintain creative control, but they can face more risk if they skip legal planning. Common problems include unclear ownership of the script, missing music licenses, handshake agreements with collaborators, and no written permission to use locations or people’s likenesses. These are the kinds of issues that can derail distribution, block a streaming deal, or force last-minute cuts that fundamentally change your story.
Legal guides for indie filmmakers consistently emphasize a few realities:
- You do not fully “own” your film unless you have clear contracts for writing, directing, producing, and underlying rights.
- Unregistered or unlicensed creative elements (like music and logos) can make your project uninsurable or unattractive to distributors.
- Fixing legal problems after the fact is almost always more expensive and limiting than planning for them at the beginning.
So when you watch Michael skip over certain events, you are seeing, in exaggerated form, the same forces that can shape an indie short, web series, documentary, or podcast episode.
Practical Legal Lessons You Can Apply Now
You do not need a law degree, but you do need a basic legal strategy for your creative work. Here are practical steps drawn from entertainment-law and indie-film resources:
- Clarify who owns the story
- Use written agreements with co-writers, directors, and producers that state who owns the script and finished film.
- If your work is based on a real person or memoir, secure life-rights or written permission where appropriate, especially if the portrayal is sensitive.
- Be intentional with real people and events
- When telling true or inspired-by-true stories, avoid making specific, negative claims about identifiable people unless they are well-documented and legally vetted.
- Change names, details, and circumstances enough that the person is not clearly identifiable if you do not have their cooperation.
- Lock down music and visuals
- Use original scores, licensed tracks, or reputable libraries; never assume you can keep a song just because it is in a rough cut.
- Clear artwork, logos, and recognizable brands, or replace them with generic or custom-designed alternatives.
- Protect yourself in contracts
- When signing any distribution or platform deal, read the clauses about editing, retitling, and marketing carefully; ask for limits or at least consultation rights.
- Include terms that let you reclaim rights if a partner fails to release the work, goes dark, or breaches key promises.
- Document everything
- Keep organized copies of releases, licenses, and contracts; these documents are part of your project’s value and proof of your rights.
- Register your work where applicable (for example, copyright), which strengthens your ability to enforce your rights if someone copies you.
Education-focused legal resources repeatedly stress that preventative steps—basic contracts, clear permissions, and simple registrations—are far cheaper than dealing with takedowns, lawsuits, or forced rewrites later.
The Big Takeaway: Story and Law Are Connected
The Michael biopic illustrates what happens when legal obligations and creative vision collide: whole characters disappear, endings are rewritten, and the public only sees a version of the story that fits within old contracts.
As an indie filmmaker, writer, or content creator, you may not have millions at stake, but you do have something just as valuable—your voice and your ability to tell the story you meant to tell.
Understanding the legal dimensions of your work is not a distraction from creativity; it is a way of protecting it. When you know where the legal boundaries are, you can design stories that are bold, truthful, and still safe enough to reach the audiences they deserve.
Advice2 weeks agoHow to Make Your Indie Film Pay Off Without Losing Half to Distributors
Advice2 weeks agoHow to Find Your Voice as a Filmmaker
Business3 weeks agoWhat the Michael Biopic Means for Every Indie Filmmaker
Business2 weeks agoGLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT RETURNS FOR ITS 5TH EDITION AT THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT – HOUSE OF LORDS, PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
News2 weeks agoCan AI Really Steal Your Fingerprints From a Selfie?
Film Industry2 weeks agoActors Win AI Deal – But Your Face Is Still Training the Machine
Business1 week agoBuilding a 10 Million Army: One Leader’s Mission to Save Tomorrow
Entertainment1 week agoOzempic Era: Beauty, Lizard Venom, Big Pharma


















