When you see a phrase like supports illegally in a way nyt popping up in search trends, your first instinct is probably to assume a massive scandal just broke. Or maybe a typo went viral. Honestly, it’s a bit of both. We’re living in an era where the New York Times isn’t just reporting on the law; they are actively reshaping how we define "illegal" support in the digital age through high-stakes litigation.
It sounds like a word salad. I get it. But look closer.
The core of this issue—and why people are searching for it so frantically—stems from the landmark legal battles between legacy media and Artificial Intelligence companies. Specifically, the NYT's lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft. The crux of the argument is that these tech behemoths are using copyrighted content to "support" their models in a way that the Times claims is fundamentally illegal. It isn't just about "using" data. It’s about the way that support functions.
The internet is messy.
The NYT Legal Battle: Not Just Another Copyright Suit
The New York Times didn't just wake up and decide to sue because they were bored. They’re arguing that ChatGPT and other LLMs are basically "reciting" their articles. If a tool "supports" its users by providing full paragraphs of paywalled NYT content without a subscription, the Times argues that the tool supports illegally in a way NYT has never authorized.
Think about it this way.
If I summarize a movie for you, that's fine. If I record the movie on my phone and charge people a dollar to watch it in my garage, that's a problem. The Times is arguing that AI models aren't just "learning." They are "regurgitating."
They provided exhibits—and these are real, documented court filings—showing ChatGPT producing near-verbatim excerpts from NYT investigations. We're talking about Pulitzer-winning work. This isn't just a tech glitch; it’s a fundamental disagreement on the definition of "Fair Use."
What is "Fair Use" Anyway?
It’s the legal shield everyone hides behind.
In the U.S., the Copyright Act allows for the use of protected material for things like criticism, news reporting, or teaching. But there’s a four-factor test. One of those factors is the "effect of the use upon the potential market." If people stop visiting the NYT website because they can get the info for free via an AI bot, the market is destroyed.
That’s the "illegal way" the Times is highlighting.
How "Support" Became a Legal Minefield
When we talk about how a system supports illegally in a way NYT describes, we’re looking at the architecture of the training data.
Most AI companies use a dataset called Common Crawl. It’s basically a giant scrape of the entire internet. It’s huge. Massive. Trillions of words. Inside that scrape are millions of articles from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and every small-town paper you’ve ever heard of.
📖 Related: Apple Lightning Cable to USB C: Why It Is Still Kicking and Which One You Actually Need
The tech side says: "We're just teaching the computer how to speak."
The NYT side says: "You're building a replacement for our business using our own labor."
It’s a standoff.
The Concept of "Transformative" Work
For the AI companies to win, they have to prove their work is "transformative." This means the new product (the AI) creates something entirely different from the original (the news article).
But is it transformative if I ask for a recipe for Beef Bourguignon and the AI gives me the exact text from a NYT Cooking article? Probably not. That’s why this phrase supports illegally in a way nyt is so central to the conversation. It points to a specific type of infringement where the AI acts as a mirror rather than a student.
Why This Matters to You Right Now
You might think, "I don't care about billionaire media companies fighting billionaire tech companies."
Fair point.
But you should care because of the "Link Tax" and "AI Licensing" models that are coming. If the NYT wins, the internet changes. Forever.
- Free information might become a lot harder to find.
- AI models might become more expensive to use.
- Search engines might stop showing snippets of text.
Essentially, the way the internet supports illegally in a way NYT is currently fighting could lead to a "walled garden" era. Everything will be licensed. Everything will be metered.
Real-World Examples of the Conflict
Look at what happened with Perplexity AI. They’ve been accused of "ignoring" the robots.txt files (which basically tell bots "don't enter"). When a company ignores these rules, they are accessing data they shouldn't. This is exactly the kind of behavior that leads to claims that a platform supports illegally in a way NYT and other publishers find predatory.
It's not just the Times, either.
Authors like Sarah Silverman and George R.R. Martin have filed similar suits. The music industry is doing it too. Universal Music Group is suing AI companies for training on their catalogs.
The common thread? Data.
The Technical Reality of AI Training
Let's get into the weeds for a second.
👉 See also: iPhone 16 Pro Natural Titanium: What the Reviewers Missed About This Finish
AI models use something called "weights" and "parameters." When a model is trained on the NYT, it doesn't "store" the article like a hard drive does. Instead, it adjusts the strength of connections between words.
If the model sees "The New York Times reported today that..." followed by a specific fact a million times, that connection becomes very strong. This is how the model "remembers."
The NYT argues that these weights are essentially a compressed version of their copyrighted material. It's like taking a high-resolution photo, turning it into a tiny thumbnail, and then claiming you didn't copy the photo.
It’s still the photo.
What the Courts Are Actually Saying
So far, the results are mixed.
Judges are notoriously slow to understand technology. We’ve seen some parts of these lawsuits dismissed, while others—the ones specifically about direct copyright infringement—are moving forward to discovery.
Discovery is where things get spicy.
The NYT will get to look at the internal emails of OpenAI. They’ll see exactly how much weight was given to their data. They’ll see if engineers talked about "scraping" or "stealing" or "supporting."
This is where the evidence for the supports illegally in a way nyt claim will either solidify or evaporate.
The Licensing Solution
Some companies are already surrendering.
Vox Media, Axel Springer, and even News Corp have signed deals with OpenAI. They are basically saying, "Okay, you can use our stuff, but you have to pay us."
The NYT is the holdout.
They don't just want money. They want a legal precedent. They want to ensure that the future of journalism isn't just being a "data provider" for a chatbot that eventually puts them out of business.
✨ Don't miss: Heavy Aircraft Integrated Avionics: Why the Cockpit is Becoming a Giant Smartphone
Actionable Steps for Navigating This Mess
If you’re a creator, a business owner, or just a heavy AI user, you need to understand the shifting ground. The "wild west" era of AI training is ending.
Check your own data usage. If you are using AI to generate content for your website, make sure it’s not just copying and pasting. Use tools to check for plagiarism. If your AI supports illegally in a way nyt has flagged, your site could be hit with a DMCA takedown or a Google penalty.
Diversify your sources. Don’t rely on a single LLM. Different models are trained on different data. Some are more "ethical" than others. For example, some models only train on public domain data or licensed datasets.
Understand "Opt-Out" protocols. If you have a website, make sure your robots.txt file is updated to block AI crawlers if you don't want your work used. Most major AI companies now honor the "GPTBot" user agent.
Watch the "Fair Use" rulings closely. The next 12 to 18 months will define the next 20 years of the internet. If the NYT wins, we might see the end of "free" scraping.
Moving Forward with Ethics in Mind
The phrase supports illegally in a way nyt is a symptom of a massive technological shift. We are moving from the "Information Age" to the "Synthesized Information Age."
In the first age, we searched for things.
In the second age, the computer tells us the answer.
But that answer has to come from somewhere. If the people who write the news, conduct the investigations, and take the photos aren't paid, the AI will eventually have nothing left to "learn" from. It will just be a bot quoting another bot.
That’s a boring future.
The Bottom Line
Keep an eye on the Southern District of New York. That’s where the real action is happening. Every filing, every motion to dismiss, and every evidentiary hearing is a brick in the wall of the new digital economy.
Whether you agree with the Gray Lady or not, their fight is everyone’s fight. It’s about who owns the words you’re reading right now.
To stay ahead of these legal shifts, you should:
- Audit your AI content strategy to ensure no verbatim outputs are being published.
- Monitor the "New York Times vs. OpenAI" docket for updates on "Fair Use" definitions.
- Implement
robots.txtexclusions specifically for AI crawlers if you are a publisher. - Explore licensed AI models that use "clean" data for business-critical functions.
The legal landscape is changing fast. Don't get left behind in the old "copy-paste" world.