Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Last month, a federal judge ordered OPENAI to keep all Chatgpt data in the process of copyright trial. In response, Openai appealed to cancel the decision indicating that “the scanning and unprecedented order” violates the privacy of its users.
The New York Times heard OPENAI and Microsoft in 2023 saying that companies had violated copyright using its articles to train their language models. However, Openai said The case of Times is “without merit” and argued that the training is “fair use”.
Previously, Openai only held chat newspapers for Chatgpt Free, Plus and Pro users who have not disappeared. However, in May, Times and other press organizations claimed This OpenAi engaged in a “substantial and continuous” destruction of cat newspapers which could contain evidence of copyright violations. Ona Wang Judge replied by ordering Chatgpt to maintain and separate all the Chatppt newspapers which would otherwise be deleted.
In an appeal to court, Openai argued that Wang’s order “prevents[s] Openia to respect the confidentiality decisions of its users. “According to Ars Technica, the company also affirmed that the accusations of the Times were” unfounded “, writing,” Openai “destroyed” no data and certainly did not delete data in response to the events. The order seems to have incorrectly supposed. “
“THE [Times] And other applicants have made a radical and unnecessary request in their baseless trial against us, “said COO Brad Lightcap said in a declaration. He added that the OPENAI request to maintain all the data “abandons longtime confidentiality standards and weakens the protection of privacy”.
On X, CEO Sam Altman wrote that “inappropriate demand … establishes a bad precedent”. He also added that the case highlights the need for an “privilege of AI” where “talking to an AI should be like talking to a lawyer or a doctor”.
We recently thought of the need for something like “AI privilege”; It really accelerates the need to have the conversation.
The omi speaking to an AI should be like talking to a lawyer or a doctor.
I hope the company will understand this soon.
– Sam Altman (@sama) June 6, 2025
The court order sparked a wave of initial panic. According to Ars Technica, the OPENAI judicial deposit cited publications on LinkedIn and X social networks where users have expressed their concerns about their privacy. On LinkedIn, a person warned their customers to be “very careful” about the information they shared with Chatgpt. In another example, someone tweeted: “Wang apparently thinks that the copyright concerns of the NY Times Times prevail over the intimacy of each user of @openai – Insane !!!”
On the one hand, I could not imagine having a Chatppt journal enough sensitive data for someone else to read it. However, people use Chatppt as therapist, for life advice, and even treat it as a romantic partner. That I do the same personally, they deserve the right to keep this private content.
At the same time, the case of Times is not as foundation as the Openai claims. It is really worth discussing the formation of artificial intelligence. Remember when Clearview Ai scraped 30 billion images Facebook to form its facial recognition? Or report that the FThe Ederal government uses images of vulnerable people To test the facial recognition software? Yes, these examples exist outside the law on journalism and copyright. However, this highlights the need for conversations on the question of whether companies like Openai should need explicit consent to use content rather than scratching what they want from the Internet.
