NYT will have to prove that the derivative work is still theirs. Just violating the license may not be enough. That could be bad by itself I guess. But consi

NYT will have to prove that the derivative work is still theirs. Just violating the license may not be enough. That could be bad by itself I guess. But considering the interactive prompt can produce a wild amount of variations of 'not NYT stuff' will make it though to say what sort of damages is this. A similar sort of issue popped up in the 80s around colorization of films. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-06-20-ca-8405-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-06-20-ca-8405-s... https://chart.copyrightdata.com/Colorization.html https://chart.copyrightdata.com/Colorization.html The answer may be 'maybe'? As from what I read they basically split the decision down to 'i know it when I see it' style of ruling. If the copyright is still in effect then NYT owns that portion of the output but not others parts. As the secondary effect would be owned by the generator company (in this case OpenAI) or the person who prompted for it. If that is the case NYT would have to prove what parts (nodes? bacreferences? weights?) they own?