Google, OpenAI want ‘license to steal’ from publishers with AI proposals, newspapers warn in scathing editorial

New York Post - Mar 18th, 2025

Big Tech companies, including Google and OpenAI, have petitioned the Trump administration to allow AI models to be trained on copyrighted material without compensating content creators. This request has been met with strong opposition from major publishers, such as those under Alden Global Capital, who warn of the detrimental effects this could have on the news industry. High-profile Hollywood actors have also voiced their concerns, emphasizing the potential harm to creative industries. The debate centers around maintaining copyright protections versus fueling national AI competitiveness, with OpenAI arguing that loosening these laws is crucial for the US to maintain its AI lead over China.

The implications of this development are significant, as it pits technological advancement against the preservation of intellectual property rights. Industry advocates argue that the erosion of copyright laws could result in catastrophic financial impacts on publishers and other creative sectors that are vital to the US economy. Meanwhile, media giants like News Corp have sought to navigate the situation through licensing agreements rather than litigation. The ongoing lawsuits by Alden-owned newspapers and The New York Times against OpenAI highlight the contentious nature of the issue, underscoring the critical balance between innovation and the protection of creators' rights.

Trump Administration Open Ai Google Big Tech Ai Training Alden Global Capital Copyright Hollywood Actors

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article addresses a timely and significant issue at the intersection of technology, law, and creative industries, offering insights into the ongoing debate about AI and copyright. While it provides a clear narrative and highlights the concerns of publishers and creatives, it lacks balance by not fully exploring the tech companies' perspectives. The absence of direct sourcing and outdated references, such as the mention of the 'Trump administration,' detract from its accuracy and timeliness. Enhancing transparency through more detailed sourcing and ensuring all references are current would improve the article's overall quality. Despite these shortcomings, the story effectively engages with public interest topics and has the potential to influence discussions on copyright and AI development.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that align with real-world discussions about AI, copyright, and intellectual property. For instance, it accurately reflects the ongoing debate about AI companies like Google and OpenAI seeking changes to copyright laws. However, the story's mention of the 'Trump administration' seems outdated or incorrect, given the current political context, which can mislead readers about the timeline of events. Moreover, the claim about a $250 million deal between News Corp and OpenAI requires verification, as such specific financial details need solid sourcing. The article also accurately notes the stance of publishers and actors against the proposed changes, but the exact number of signatories and the content of their letters would benefit from direct citations to ensure precision.

Balance

The article predominantly presents the perspective of those opposing the AI companies' proposals, such as the publishers and Hollywood actors. While it does mention the arguments made by Google and OpenAI, these are not explored in depth, leading to a potential imbalance. The narrative leans towards the negative implications of the proposed copyright changes without equally weighing the benefits that tech companies argue for, such as national security and maintaining a competitive edge in AI development. Including more detailed counterarguments from the tech companies could provide a more balanced view.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it accessible to a broad audience. It logically outlines the positions of various stakeholders and the potential consequences of the proposed copyright changes. However, some parts could be confusing due to outdated references, such as mentioning the 'Trump administration,' which may lead to misunderstandings about the current political context. Ensuring that all references are current and clearly explained would improve clarity.

Source quality

The article references several stakeholders, such as Alden Global Capital, News Corp, and the News Media Alliance, which are credible in their fields. However, the lack of direct quotes or links to primary documents, such as the letters from Google and OpenAI or the editorial published by the newspapers, weakens the source quality. The story would benefit from more direct evidence or citations to authoritative sources to substantiate its claims, especially regarding the economic impact and legal actions mentioned.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of sourcing and methodology. It does not provide links to the primary documents or detailed explanations of the arguments presented by the tech companies or their opponents. There is also no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, such as the relationship between the publishers and the tech companies. Greater transparency about the sources of information and the context of the claims would enhance the article's credibility.