Recommended Free Tools
OpenAI won an early procedural victory on November 7, 2024, when a federal judge dismissed Raw Story Media and AlterNet Media’s lawsuit. But the ruling did not decide whether OpenAI may legally train AI models on copyrighted journalism without permission or payment.
The case focused on a narrower allegation: that OpenAI removed copyright-management information—such as authors’ names, article titles, and related metadata—from news articles allegedly used to develop ChatGPT. The court found that the publishers had not adequately pleaded a concrete injury caused by that alleged removal.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Copyright Law | $144.88 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Copyright Law: Cases and Materials (v8.0) | $19.87 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Copyright Law of the United States: and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code | $10.32 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Copyright Law in a Nutshell | $65.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Copyright Handbook, The: What Every Writer Needs to Know | $37.99 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What Raw Story and AlterNet alleged
Raw Story Media and AlterNet Media filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 28, 2024. The case, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., was assigned case number 1:24-cv-01514.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The publishers brought a single cause of action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). They alleged that OpenAI removed copyright-management information connected with their articles, including author names, titles, and other identifying details, before or during the use of that material in training ChatGPT.
#1 Best Overall
That theory was narrower than a conventional copyright-infringement claim. Copyright infringement generally concerns unauthorized copying, distribution, display, or other violations of a copyright holder’s exclusive rights. The Raw Story–AlterNet complaint instead focused on alleged removal of information associated with copyrighted works.
The underlying dispute was broader. The publishers objected to the alleged use of their journalism to develop a commercial AI system without compensation. But the court had to assess the legal claim actually pleaded—not the entire policy debate surrounding AI training data.
Read the original dismissal order.
Why Judge McMahon dismissed the lawsuit
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the case primarily because the publishers did not adequately plead a concrete, legally recognizable injury connected to the alleged metadata removal.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchIn plain English, filing a federal lawsuit requires more than alleging that a defendant violated a statute. The plaintiff must generally show an actual or sufficiently imminent harm that the court is empowered to address. This requirement is commonly described as Article III standing.
Rank #2
Judge McMahon concluded that the complaint did not sufficiently connect OpenAI’s alleged removal of copyright-management information to such an injury. The publishers also did not plausibly establish a substantial risk that ChatGPT would reproduce one of their articles in a way that created the required harm.
The judge viewed the publishers’ central grievance as OpenAI’s alleged use of their articles to develop ChatGPT without payment. But the pleaded DMCA theory did not adequately connect that broader objection to a concrete injury caused by the alleged removal of identifying information.
The court also dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. That meant the publishers were not simply given permission to revise the same complaint and continue in the trial court.
What the ruling did not decide
The dismissal was not a ruling that AI companies may freely train on copyrighted news.
Judge McMahon did not decide:
- Whether OpenAI actually used particular Raw Story or AlterNet articles in training.
- Whether training generative AI models on copyrighted works qualifies as fair use.
- Whether OpenAI’s conduct could amount to direct copyright infringement under a different legal claim.
- Whether model outputs infringe copyright when they reproduce or closely paraphrase protected articles.
- Whether removing copyright-management information could be actionable if accompanied by different allegations of copying, dissemination, or concrete economic harm.
- Whether other publishers’ copyright lawsuits against AI companies will succeed.
The judge’s discussion of the alleged risk that ChatGPT would reproduce the publishers’ articles applied to the allegations and record in this case. It should not be generalized into a conclusion that ChatGPT cannot produce infringing material or that AI outputs never create copyright liability.
Why headlines called it a “first-round” win
Calling the decision a “first-round” victory accurately signals that OpenAI succeeded at an early stage of the litigation. It also avoids suggesting that the court had resolved the larger copyright questions.
The more precise description is this: OpenAI won dismissal of the publishers’ pleaded DMCA copyright-management-information claim, based on the court’s finding that the alleged injury was not adequately established.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
That is materially different from saying that OpenAI won the right to train on news articles, proved that its training practices were fair use, or defeated every copyright theory that publishers might bring.
Rank #4
Initial coverage quoted publisher-side attorney Matt Topic as saying the plaintiffs believed they could address the court’s concerns through an amended complaint. The subsequent procedural record is important, however: Judge McMahon’s ruling denied leave to amend, and the publishers’ later effort to reopen the matter was unsuccessful.
Engadget’s contemporaneous report provides the initial account of the dismissal.
What happened after the 2024 dismissal?
- February 28, 2024: Raw Story and AlterNet filed their complaint in the Southern District of New York.
- November 7, 2024: Judge McMahon dismissed the case, finding that the publishers had not adequately pleaded a concrete, cognizable injury. Leave to amend was denied.
- April 18, 2025: The publishers moved for reconsideration and sought permission to file an amended complaint.
- June 18, 2025: Judge Sidney H. Stein denied the reconsideration motion. He treated Judge McMahon’s dismissal as a final order and indicated that an appeal—not reconsideration—was the ordinary route for challenging it.
The case was transferred into the Southern District of New York’s multidistrict litigation involving OpenAI copyright cases. In denying reconsideration, Judge Stein acknowledged tension between Judge McMahon’s standing analysis and reasoning used later in The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. He nevertheless declined to reopen the earlier final dismissal merely because a later decision appeared inconsistent with it.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The research record available for this article does not verify a final Second Circuit appellate disposition as of August 18, 2026. Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to say that the case was revived, settled, or definitively ended on appeal without a confirmed appellate docket entry or opinion.
Best Value
Read Judge Stein’s June 18, 2025 order.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why the case matters for AI copyright litigation
The case illustrates why the result of an AI copyright lawsuit can depend heavily on the specific claim and the way injury is pleaded.
Different cases may involve different combinations of:
- Alleged copying during model training.
- Reproduction or close paraphrasing in model outputs.
- Loss of subscription, licensing, advertising, or other market revenue.
- Identifiable works and specific examples of model behavior.
- Requests for discovery into training datasets or system operation.
- Challenges based on standing, pleading sufficiency, failure to state a claim, fair use, or infringement merits.
A dismissal for insufficiently pleaded injury does not establish that the plaintiffs’ broader concerns are false. It means the court found that this particular complaint did not connect its legal theory to a sufficiently concrete injury.
That procedural distinction is especially important in a field where “copyright lawsuit” can describe very different disputes. A case about metadata removal is not automatically a decision about whether training itself infringes copyright. A case about allegedly infringing outputs may raise different factual and legal questions from one focused on how a model was developed.
Bottom line
OpenAI won the opening procedural fight in the Raw Story–AlterNet litigation. Judge McMahon dismissed the publishers’ single DMCA claim because they had not adequately shown a concrete injury caused by the alleged removal of copyright-management information or a substantial risk that ChatGPT would reproduce their articles.
That decision did not resolve fair use, direct infringement, the legality of training on copyrighted journalism, or the claims in other publishers’ lawsuits. The later denial of reconsideration in June 2025 left the original dismissal in place, while the verified appellate outcome remains uncertain in the supplied record.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems
