Association of American Publishers argues that OpenAI's training copies are not transformative
Association of American PublishersPublishing trade association, filing jointly with CCC, IBPA and STM
AAP and its fellow amici argue that OpenAI's copying for AI training is not transformative and harms copyright markets.
“OpenAI's Copying for AI Training Is Not a Transformative Use.”
Original text
Original text
Where this statement fits
OpenAI says pretraining on authors' books is fair use; authors and publishers urge the court to reject it
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.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The amici argue that unlicensed training is not transformative and harms markets for works and AI licenses.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
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.
After the quotation
Their brief argues that training produces substitutes and damages markets for works and AI licenses.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseAuthors Guild and fellow plaintiffs say OpenAI's training copies are not fair use
Authors Guild
“Defendants' Copying of Plaintiffs' Works to Train LLMs Was Not Fair Use.”Read statement
OpenAI defends model pretraining as fair use
OpenAI
“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.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Association of American Publishers argues that OpenAI's training copies are not transformative
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7276-aap-and-its-fellow-amici-argue-that-openai
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Association of American Publishers argues that OpenAI's training copies are not transformative". First published: 2026-10-30. Last updated: 2026-10-30. https://disputeindex.com/events/7276-aap-and-its-fellow-amici-argue-that-openai