New York Times vs. OpenAI: Will the NYT win the Copyright Lawsuit on any count?
The New York Times will win the lawsuit
OpenAI will win the lawsuit
The case will settle out of court

The New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft for alleged copyright infringement in training its AI models has raised critical questions about intellectual property in the age of artificial intelligence.

As of December 27, 2023 OpenAI has not yet responded publicly to the lawsuit. Both parties are likely engaging in legal strategy and potentially settlement negotiations. Similar lawsuits by authors against OpenAI are also pending, potentially influencing the legal landscape surrounding AI training and copyright.

This case could have significant implications for the future of AI development and the copyright rights of content creators.

This market focuses solely on the outcome of the initial lawsuit, excluding subsequent appeals. Resolves “The New York Times will win the lawsuit” if the outcome of the initial lawsuit is in favor of the NYT on any count.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

"OpenAI has asked a federal judge to dismiss parts of the New York Times' copyright lawsuit against it, arguing that the newspaper "hacked" ChatGPT"

This doesn't look good for OpenAI to me.

bought Ṁ20 The New York Times w... YES
bought Ṁ10 of The case will settle... YES

Don't most businesses prefer to settle rather than going to court? It really seems like it's just a matter of price at this point.

What scenarios would “other” capture?

@az_zyc Both parties withdraw, etc.

OpenAI will win this in every way that matters, but with the biased description, it may resolve NYT, i.e. they may get something out of it, even though they will lose in regard to all of their main claims.

@DavidBolin If you have concerns about potential bias in the market, you are welcome to choose not to participate. I’ve specifically formatted the description to eliminate subjective judgment in determining wins and losses.

@AviSchwartz Indeed. As you can see I have not placed any bet here and do not intend to. I did not say it was subjective; I said it was a biased description. That does not mean it will not be clear whether the description applies or not.

I do not like betting on an inaccurate description of an outcome even when it is perfectly clear what the market author intended.

@DavidBolin I'm actually confused, presumably OpenAI believes they're doing nothing illegal. If the NYT wins on any count that means OpenAI had been determined to be wrong.

If they settle out of court you could argue that's a win for the NYT or for neither, but this is a multiple choice question. I don't think that option is described as a win for either

Not to be a bore but, re your clarification: Winning a ruling is different from winning a lawsuit. The "initial ruling" will be on a motion to dismiss, which NYT has a ~100% chance of winning because it's basically a ruling on the question "is it at least barely plausible there's a copyright violation here?" To preserve your intent, I'd suggest changing it to "Resolves 'The NYT will win the lawsuit' if there is a final decision on the merits in the NYT's favor on any claim brought by the NYT."

@CateHall I apologize for the confusion. I was not referring to a motion to dismiss. Rather, I was referring to the outcome in the initial lawsuit, before any potential appeals. Let me clarify.

You might want to clarify what happens if the ruling (in either direction) is reversed on appeal — high likelihood that happens here and appeal is all but certain

Comment hidden
bought Ṁ5 of Other YES

Is there a chance the case gets rejected by the court? I don’t know about the procedures there.

@marktwse Rejection is called "dismissal" and that would be a win for openai.

bought Ṁ2 of Other YES

How does this market settle if the New York Times wins on some counts but not others?

@EricNeyman Settles NYT.

bought Ṁ100 of OpenAI will win the ... NO

@AviSchwartz So even if it’s on-net not favourable to NYT, this still resolves NYT win?

@c0m Exactly. That is why I said it was a biased description, not because the outcome given the description would be unclear.

@DavidBolin Changed the title to eliminate confusion

More related questions