DOJ argues AI training qualifies as fair use in Times lawsuit

The DOJ's position creates a direct contradiction within the federal government itself, pitting the executive branch's litigation strategy against the Copyright Office's own published guidance. The removal of the Copyright Office director adds a political dimension that courts will have to navigate when weighing the weight of that agency's opinion.

This filing lands one day after our coverage of Google pursuing direct Hollywood licensing deals ('Google needs Hollywood more than the studios need AI', September 1). Those two data points now pull in opposite directions: Google is paying for permissions while the DOJ argues permissions aren't legally required. If the DOJ's fair use argument prevails, Google's licensing strategy looks like an expensive hedge rather than a necessity, and the studios lose the leverage our earlier analysis said they had. Labs watching this case now face a genuine strategic fork: negotiate licenses and reduce litigation risk, or hold out and wait for a ruling that could vindicate the scraping model entirely.

Watch whether the New York Times files a response that directly challenges the DOJ's standing to override Copyright Office guidance, and whether any other federal agency files a conflicting amicus brief within the next 60 days. That would signal the internal contradiction is litigable, not just political.