Ian B. Crosby, a partner at Susman Godfrey, has emerged as a central figure in one of the most significant legal battles shaping the future of artificial intelligence. As the lead attorney for The New York Times in its high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, Crosby is at the forefront of establishing legal precedents for how AI companies can use copyrighted content to train their models.
The lawsuit centers on allegations that The New York Times’ articles were used without permission to train chatbots that now compete directly with the newspaper itself. This case represents a critical test of copyright law in the age of generative AI, with implications that could reshape the entire AI industry’s approach to training data.
Crosby, who is nationally recognized for his expertise in intellectual property and technology law, has articulated a clear vision for what this lawsuit aims to achieve. He hopes to establish a legal framework requiring that copyright holders must give explicit permission and receive compensation for their works being used to create AI products, particularly when those products compete with the original creators.
In a statement to Business Insider, Crosby emphasized the existential threat facing content creators: “Nobody wins if AI consumes the livelihoods of creators whose original works make AI possible in the first place.” This statement encapsulates the core tension in the AI industry between innovation and fair compensation for the creative works that power these systems.
OpenAI has responded by calling the lawsuit without merit, setting the stage for what could be a landmark legal battle. The case has drawn significant attention from across the media, technology, and legal industries, as its outcome could establish precedents affecting how AI companies source training data and whether they must license content from publishers, journalists, and other creators.
Crosby’s inclusion in Business Insider’s AI Power List underscores his growing influence in shaping AI policy and regulation through the courts. As generative AI tools become increasingly sophisticated and commercially viable, the questions raised by this lawsuit—about ownership, compensation, and the rights of original creators—will only become more pressing for the industry.
Key Quotes
Nobody wins if AI consumes the livelihoods of creators whose original works make AI possible in the first place
Ian B. Crosby, lead attorney for The New York Times, articulated this principle to Business Insider, highlighting the fundamental paradox facing the AI industry: the technology depends on creative works for training, yet threatens to eliminate the economic viability of creating those works.
Our Take
Crosby’s case represents the legal system catching up to technological reality. The AI industry has operated in a regulatory gray zone, assuming that scraping publicly available content for training constitutes fair use. This lawsuit challenges that assumption directly. What makes this particularly significant is the competitive angle—OpenAI’s chatbots don’t just use Times content; they potentially replace the Times as an information source. This isn’t just about copyright; it’s about market displacement. If AI companies can freely use content to build products that compete with their sources, they’re essentially weaponizing others’ investments against them. The outcome will determine whether AI development follows a collaborative model with content licensing, or continues the current approach of “move fast and litigate later.” Crosby’s prominence on the AI Power List signals that legal frameworks, not just technology, will shape AI’s trajectory.
Why This Matters
This legal battle represents a pivotal moment for the AI industry’s future business model. If Crosby succeeds in establishing that AI companies must obtain permission and pay for copyrighted training data, it could fundamentally reshape how companies like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic develop their models. The case addresses a critical tension: AI systems require vast amounts of high-quality content to function effectively, yet using that content without compensation threatens the very creators who produce it.
The implications extend far beyond journalism. A ruling in favor of The New York Times could establish precedents affecting musicians, artists, authors, photographers, and any content creator whose work has been used to train AI systems. It could force AI companies to negotiate licensing agreements, potentially creating new revenue streams for publishers while increasing costs for AI development. Conversely, a ruling favoring OpenAI could accelerate AI development but potentially undermine creative industries. This case will likely influence regulatory approaches globally and determine whether AI innovation proceeds at the expense of content creators or in partnership with them.
Recommended Reading
For those interested in learning more about artificial intelligence, machine learning, and effective AI communication, here are some excellent resources:
Recommended Reading
Related Stories
- Elon Musk Drops Lawsuit Against ChatGPT Maker OpenAI, No Explanation
- Photobucket is licensing your photos and images to train AI without your consent, and there’s no easy way to opt out
- OpenAI CEO Sam Altman Hints at Potential Restructuring in 2024
- OpenAI’s Valuation Soars as AI Race Heats Up
- Outlook Uncertain as US Government Pivots to Full AI Regulations
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/ian-b-crosby-susman-godfrey-ai-power-list-2024