“(He also said at the time “we think that content creators, content owners, need to benefit from this technology” but ever since his company has been pushing for free training materials and exemption from copyright laws.)”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Since 2023 OpenAI has pushed for free training materials and exemption from copyright law, contrary to Altman's stated support for content creators.
Assessment: Supported Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Two Years Ago Today in AI History: The Tale of An About-face in AI Regulation, paragraph 17.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-two-years-ago-today-in-ai-history-74dd27-a1
We recorded 13 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2025-05-16. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- content creators, content owners, need to benefit
- ever since
- pushing for free training materials
- exemption from copyright laws
Our interpretation
- The period begins with the May 16, 2023 testimony and ends with the May 16, 2025 post.
- Read 'free training materials' as advocating training access without a general requirement to obtain permission or pay copyright royalties.
- In the training context, read 'exemption' as seeking protection from copyright liability for training, including through fair use. Do not read it as immunity for every output or every business activity.
- 'Ever since' means a sustained position during the intervening period, not documented advocacy on every day.
- The contrast with creator benefits does not itself establish dishonesty or a promise to pay for every training use.
Counts as supported if: Altman expressed support for creator benefits, and subsequent OpenAI positions advocated training on copyrighted works without generally required licensing or royalties.
Counts as contradicted if: OpenAI's subsequent position required permission and payment for copyrighted training generally, rather than advocating fair-use protection or a training exception.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Supported
The dated evidence matches what the claim committed to, under the criteria frozen before grading.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
Altman said creators should benefit. OpenAI subsequently advocated fair-use protection for training in 2023, 2024, and 2025, supporting the claim about access without generally required copyright permission or royalties. The result is limited to training. The records do not establish a demand for blanket immunity from copyright law, and OpenAI also pursued publisher partnerships. Advocacy for fair use does not by itself prove that the creator-benefit statement was insincere.
Limitations
- Fair use is part of copyright law; calling it an exemption from copyright laws is imprecise.
- The assessment addresses OpenAI's advocacy, not the legal merits of particular training practices.
- The 2023 filing is a reproduced primary document; its hosting date is later than its submission date.
- The hearing statement was public on May 16, although the compiled transcript appeared later.
Evidence (5 items)
Supports the claim: U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
we think that content creators, content owners need to benefit from this technology.
Why it matters here: The official transcript confirms the substance of the statement Marcus quotes.
- Publisher
- U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: OpenAI; copy hosted by Open Future,
The factual metadata and fundamental information that AI models learn from training data are not protected by copyright law.
Why it matters here: The submission argues that training qualifies as fair use and that licensing every training work is impracticable. The quoted sentence supplies part of its stated legal rationale, establishing advocacy during 2023.
- Publisher
- OpenAI; copy hosted by Open Future
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: OpenAI,
Training AI models using publicly available internet materials is fair use
Why it matters here: OpenAI explicitly advocates fair-use protection for this training. This is evidence of its position, not a finding that its legal argument is correct.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Supports the claim: OpenAI,
Applying the fair use doctrine to AI is not only a matter of American competitiveness
Why it matters here: The submission continues the fair-use argument and criticizes restrictions on access to training material. This establishes that the advocacy persisted into 2025.
- Publisher
- OpenAI
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: OpenAI and Axel Springer,
Axel Springer and OpenAI have announced a global partnership
Why it matters here: The announcement describes publisher benefits and use of content for model training. It qualifies any suggestion that OpenAI rejected all partnerships or benefits for creators, while remaining compatible with its general fair-use position.
- Publisher
- OpenAI and Axel Springer
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Two Years Ago Today in AI History: The Tale of An About-face in AI Regulation
(He also said at the time “we think that content creators, content owners, need to benefit from this technology” but ever since his company has been pushing for free training materials and exemption from copyright laws.)
- Where
- paragraph 17
- Published
- 2025-05-16
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-two-years-ago-today-in-ai-history-74dd27-a1: Current. Outcome: Supported. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-two-years-ago-today-in-ai-history-74dd27-a1.