OpenAI says pretraining on authors' books is fair use; authors and publishers urge the court to reject it
OpenAI argues that training its models on authors' books is transformative fair use that causes no legally cognizable harm. The authors and publishing trade groups counter that the copying helps produce substitutes for books and undercuts a market for training licenses.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
OpenAI's September 4, 2026 summary-judgment motion argues that pretraining its models on authors' books was a transformative fair use that caused no legally cognizable market harm. The same day, the Authors Guild and the other class plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule that OpenAI's training copies, its downloads of books from pirate sites and the transfers of books between OpenAI and Microsoft were not fair use.
The authors argue that OpenAI copied their books to build models that generate competing works and deprived them of revenue from an existing market for training licenses. OpenAI argues that training extracts unprotectable statistical patterns for new uses and that the plaintiffs' dilution and licensing theories of harm are not legally cognizable. On October 29, the Association of American Publishers and three other publishing and licensing groups asked the court for leave to file a brief supporting the plaintiffs.
Read the full background
The authors' memorandum is Document 1982 on the consolidated docket, 25-md-3143, a less-redacted public version of the brief filed September 4. OpenAI's motion is Document 1221 on the Authors Guild member docket, 1:23-cv-08292. The publishing groups' proposed brief is Document 2304-1 and also supports the news plaintiffs. This case follows the training question. The authors also treat OpenAI's downloads from pirate sites and the companies' transfers of books as separate uses, while OpenAI calls its downloading part of a single transformative use. Under a September 24 order, opposition briefs were due October 23 and replies are due November 20, 2026. These filings present arguments; they are not rulings on the motions.
Timeline
4 timeline entries on this page. Dates: September 4, 2026 to October 29, 2026
September 2026
OpenAI moves for summary judgment
Claim
OpenAI submits a memorandum defending its use of the authors' books for model pretraining under fair use.
[01]OpenAI
OpenAI argues that model pretraining is transformative and causes no legally cognizable market harm. The filing is a party's argument.
OpenAI's motion for summary judgment in the Authors Guild action · OpenAIDocument 1221, introduction and fair-use argumentsAuthors move for partial summary judgment
Claim
The Authors Guild and the other class plaintiffs ask the court to rule that OpenAI's downloads of pirated books, its training copies and the transfers of books between OpenAI and Microsoft were not fair use, and that Microsoft is vicariously liable.
[02]Authors Guild
The authors' memorandum, dated September 4, 2026, argues that OpenAI's downloads, training copies and transfers of books were not fair use and that Microsoft is vicariously liable. This public version, filed September 17, has fewer redactions than the first public copy. The filing is a party's argument.
Class plaintiffs' memorandum for partial summary judgment in the OpenAI copyright litigation · Authors GuildNo. 25-md-3143, Document 1982, introduction and Argument IIIJudge extends summary-judgment deadlines
Judge Sidney H. Stein grants a two-week extension for all parties, moving opposition briefs to October 23, amicus briefs to October 30 and replies to November 20, 2026.
[03]Order extending summary-judgment briefing in the OpenAI copyright litigation
Judge Stein endorsed a plaintiffs' letter and granted its schedule: oppositions by October 23, amicus briefs by October 30 and replies by November 20, 2026. The letter is the plaintiffs' account of the dispute; the endorsement sets the dates.
Order extending summary-judgment briefing in the OpenAI copyright litigationNo. 25-md-3143, Document 2049, page 3 (endorsed September 24, 2026)
October 2026
Publishing groups ask to file an amicus brief
Source release
AAP, CCC, IBPA and STM ask for leave to file a brief supporting the class plaintiffs' and news plaintiffs' summary-judgment motions. The brief challenges OpenAI's training and market-harm arguments.
[04]Association of American Publishers
AAP announces a brief filed jointly with CCC, IBPA and STM supporting copyright plaintiffs.
Book and Journal Publishers File Amicus Brief in In Re: OpenAI Copyright Infringement Litigation · Association of American PublishersMaria A. Pallante statement and excerpts from the brief[05]Association of American Publishers
The amici argue that unlicensed training is not transformative and harms markets for works and AI licenses.
AAP, CCC, IBPA and STM amicus brief in OpenAI copyright litigation · Association of American PublishersNo. 25-md-3143, Document 2304-1, arguments I and II[06]Association of American Publishers
The four groups ask Judge Stein for leave to file their brief supporting the class plaintiffs' and news plaintiffs' summary-judgment motions.
Publishing groups' motion for leave to file an amicus brief in the OpenAI copyright litigation · Association of American PublishersNo. 25-md-3143, Document 2304 (notice of motion)
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
OpenAI
OpenAI's pretraining use of the authors' works qualifies as fair use.
What is disputed
OpenAI's alleged use of authors' books without licenses to pretrain its models.
Sources (1)
- OpenAI's motion for summary judgment in the Authors Guild action · OpenAIDocument 1221, introduction and fair-use arguments
Disputed claim
Authors Guild
OpenAI's copying of the authors' books to train its models was not fair use.
What is disputed
OpenAI's alleged use of authors' books without licenses to pretrain its models.
Sources (1)
- Class plaintiffs' memorandum for partial summary judgment in the OpenAI copyright litigation · Authors GuildNo. 25-md-3143, Document 1982, introduction and Argument III
Disputed claim
Association of American Publishers
OpenAI's unlicensed AI training is nontransformative and harms copyright markets.
What is disputed
OpenAI's alleged use of authors' books without licenses to pretrain its models.
Sources (1)
- AAP, CCC, IBPA and STM amicus brief in OpenAI copyright litigation · Association of American PublishersNo. 25-md-3143, Document 2304-1, arguments I and II
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
3 responses. Newest first.
Association of American PublishersPublishing trade association, filing jointly with CCC, IBPA and STMDirectly involvedBefore this statement
AAP, CCC, IBPA and STM ask the court for leave to file this brief supporting the class plaintiffs' and news plaintiffs' summary-judgment motions. This sentence is an argument heading in the brief.
"OpenAI's Copying for AI Training Is Not a Transformative Use."
CondemnedCase context: OpenAI says pretraining on authors' books is fair use; authors and publishers urge the court to reject it
Full statement and sources
AAP and its fellow amici argue that OpenAI's copying for AI training is not transformative and harms copyright markets.
After the statement
Their brief argues that training produces substitutes and damages markets for works and AI licenses.
AAP, CCC, IBPA and STM amicus brief in OpenAI copyright litigation · Association of American PublishersNo. 25-md-3143, Document 2304-1, arguments I and IIPublishing groups' motion for leave to file an amicus brief in the OpenAI copyright litigation · Association of American PublishersNo. 25-md-3143, Document 2304 (notice of motion)Why this label?
Relative to the unlicensed training at issue, the brief rejects the request for a fair-use exemption and argues the copying is nontransformative and harmful.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
OpenAIDefendant submitting a summary-judgment memorandumDirectly involvedBefore this statement
The motion identifies the authors' allegation that their books were used in pretraining.
"That alleged use was fair because it was highly transformative, did not display any meaningful portion of the books to ChatGPT users, and caused no cognizable harm."
Defended or excusedCase context: OpenAI says pretraining on authors' books is fair use; authors and publishers urge the court to reject it
Full statement and sources
OpenAI argues that the alleged pretraining use was transformative, did not display meaningful portions of the books to ChatGPT users and caused no legally cognizable harm.
After the statement
OpenAI develops its arguments about transformation, substitution, market dilution and licensing.
OpenAI's motion for summary judgment in the Authors Guild action · OpenAIDocument 1221, introduction and fair-use argumentsWhy this label?
Relative to unlicensed pretraining, OpenAI expressly argues the use is lawful fair use.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Authors GuildNamed plaintiff, filing with the other class plaintiffs through interim lead class counselDirectly involved Before this statement
The class plaintiffs, a group of book authors and the Authors Guild, ask the court for partial summary judgment against OpenAI and Microsoft. After arguing that OpenAI's downloads of books from pirate sites were not fair use, their memorandum turns to the copies made to train OpenAI's models in this argument heading.
"Defendants' Copying of Plaintiffs' Works to Train LLMs Was Not Fair Use."
CondemnedCase context: OpenAI says pretraining on authors' books is fair use; authors and publishers urge the court to reject it
Full statement and sources
The Authors Guild and the other class plaintiffs argue that OpenAI's copying of their books to train its models was not fair use.
After the statement
The memorandum argues that the training copies served a substitutive commercial purpose, were not necessary to any transformative purpose and harm both book sales and the market for AI training licenses.
Class plaintiffs' memorandum for partial summary judgment in the OpenAI copyright litigation · Authors GuildNo. 25-md-3143, Document 1982, introduction and Argument IIIWhy this label?
Relative to OpenAI's unlicensed pretraining on authors' books, the plaintiffs ask the court to rule that the training copies are not fair use.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(6)
Original text
OpenAI's motion for summary judgment in the Authors Guild action
Relevant passage: Document 1221, introduction and fair-use arguments
About this source
OpenAI argues that model pretraining is transformative and causes no legally cognizable market harm. The filing is a party's argument.
- Author
- OpenAI
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Publishing groups' motion for leave to file an amicus brief in the OpenAI copyright litigation
Relevant passage: No. 25-md-3143, Document 2304 (notice of motion)
About this source
The four groups ask Judge Stein for leave to file their brief supporting the class plaintiffs' and news plaintiffs' summary-judgment motions.
- Author
- Association of American Publishers and fellow amici
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Order extending summary-judgment briefing in the OpenAI copyright litigation
Relevant passage: No. 25-md-3143, Document 2049, page 3 (endorsed September 24, 2026)
About this source
Judge Stein endorsed a plaintiffs' letter and granted its schedule: oppositions by October 23, amicus briefs by October 30 and replies by November 20, 2026. The letter is the plaintiffs' account of the dispute; the endorsement sets the dates.
- Author
- Judge Sidney H. Stein (endorsement of a plaintiffs' letter)
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Class plaintiffs' memorandum for partial summary judgment in the OpenAI copyright litigation
Relevant passage: No. 25-md-3143, Document 1982, introduction and Argument III
About this source
The authors' memorandum, dated September 4, 2026, argues that OpenAI's downloads, training copies and transfers of books were not fair use and that Microsoft is vicariously liable. This public version, filed September 17, has fewer redactions than the first public copy. The filing is a party's argument.
- Author
- Class plaintiffs (the Authors Guild and named authors), through interim lead class counsel
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
AAP, CCC, IBPA and STM amicus brief in OpenAI copyright litigation
Relevant passage: No. 25-md-3143, Document 2304-1, arguments I and II
About this source
The amici argue that unlicensed training is not transformative and harms markets for works and AI licenses.
- Author
- Association of American Publishers and fellow amici
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Book and Journal Publishers File Amicus Brief in In Re: OpenAI Copyright Infringement Litigation
Relevant passage: Maria A. Pallante statement and excerpts from the brief
About this source
AAP announces a brief filed jointly with CCC, IBPA and STM supporting copyright plaintiffs.
- Author
- Association of American Publishers
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- OpenAI says pretraining on authors' books is fair use; authors and publishers urge the court to reject it
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/openai-copyright-training-fair-use-publishers-amicus
The Dispute Index. "OpenAI says pretraining on authors' books is fair use; authors and publishers urge the court to reject it". First published: 2026-10-30. Last updated: 2026-10-30. https://disputeindex.com/cases/openai-copyright-training-fair-use-publishers-amicus