“OpenAI has argued that they literally can’t build what they are building without an exemption from copyright that would crush artists, musicians, writers, and other creators.”
Our reading:
OpenAI has argued that it literally cannot build what it is building without an exemption from copyright, an exemption that would crush artists, musicians, writers, and other creators.
Assessment: Supported
What happened
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The evidence matches what they said.
Judged on a plain reading. They named no measure, so we used the reading a typical informed reader would take. It is spelled out under “How we judged it”.
Evidence up to . Checked .
Why
The factual attribution is supported under the stated ordinary-language reading. Contemporaneous reporting records OpenAI's argument that leading models required copyrighted material, and OpenAI itself asserted that training was fair use. The qualification matters: it invoked existing legal permission, not necessarily a new statutory exemption. Marcus's phrase 'would crush' is an evaluative warning, not a measured outcome established by these records.
Caveats
- The result depends on reading 'exemption' broadly enough to include asserted fair use.
- Support is for the attributed argument, not the technical necessity of copyrighted inputs or the legal correctness of OpenAI's position.
- No finding of actual or quantified harm to creators is made.
- The necessity statement relies on contemporaneous news reporting because the primary submission was inaccessible.
Evidence (2 items)
Supports the claim: The Register,
"impossible"
Why it matters: The contemporaneous report establishes that OpenAI had publicly made the necessity argument by this date. It supports attribution of that argument, not proof that copyrighted inputs are technically indispensable.
- Where
- Opening paragraph
- Publisher
- The Register
- Kind of source
- News report
- About events on
- Published
Supports the claim: OpenAI,
is fair use
Why it matters: OpenAI expressly claimed legal permission under existing fair use. This supports the ordinary-language reading of 'exemption', while qualifying any reading that OpenAI demanded a new statutory exception.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- About events on
- Published
How we judged it
- Kind of claim
- Observation
- Deadline
- None given. We don’t add one.
Where we had to interpret
- Test the factual attribution: before the post, OpenAI argued that building its leading models required copyrighted material and legal permission to train on it without obtaining individual permission for every work.
- Read 'exemption' in its ordinary, nontechnical sense as legal latitude to use protected material. This can include an asserted existing fair-use defense; it does not necessarily mean a newly enacted statutory exception.
- 'Would crush' expresses Marcus's judgment about the threat to creators. He supplies no measurable harm threshold, named legal change, jurisdiction, or deadline, so it is not made a separate outcome requirement.
- 'Has argued' concerns statements made by publication; no lower date boundary is supplied.
Right if: Contemporaneous statements establish both OpenAI's asserted need for copyrighted training material and its argument that copyright law permits that training. Support applies to this factual attribution, not to a measured finding that creators were crushed.
Wrong if: The relevant statements reject the attributed necessity or permission argument, or their full context shows Marcus materially reversed OpenAI's position. Invoking existing fair use rather than requesting a new statute is not by itself a contradiction under the stated reading.
We wrote this test after the outcome was known.
We found 17 claims in this post. See them all.
Full record
Source and dates
Marcus on AI, Seven reasons why the world should say No to Sam Altman, paragraph 14.
- Said
- We read the source
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence up to
- Checked
We read this wording on 2026-10-29. The post may have been edited after 2024-02-10.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the posts we read.
: Marcus on AI, Seven reasons why the world should say No to Sam Altman
OpenAI has argued that they literally can’t build what they are building without an exemption from copyright that would crush artists, musicians, writers, and other creators.
- Where
- paragraph 14
- Published
- 2024-02-10
- We read it
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Versions
- Current: Supported. Evidence up to 2026-10-28.
What happened to this record
PublishedBy us
Published after both AI reviews and the final check passed.
Held backBy us
A reviewer said our test wasn’t fair to what was actually said.