AI Lawsuits are Coming: Court Denies OpenAI’s Motion to Dismiss Claims that ChatGPT Infringed Game of Thrones Author’s Rights

The use of copyrighted works to train generative Artificial Intelligence models (“AI”) is being challenged in several recent lawsuits, which claim that the computer-created outputs largely steal from these protected works. Recently, The Authors Guild and a proposed class of authors and other book copyright holders (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a number of such lawsuits, now centralized in the Southern District of New York, against OpenAI and Microsoft Corporation. Plaintiffs allege that defendants copied their books to train OpenAI’s large language models and that certain ChatGPT outputs infringe their protected expression.[1] On October 27, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein of the Southern District of New York denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claims, allowing Plaintiffs’ case to move forward.

Plaintiffs include fiction and non-fiction authors such as George R.R. Martin, whose epic fantasy series, “A Song of Ice and Fire”, was adapted by HBO as Game of Thrones. They contend that OpenAI and Microsoft reproduced their works without authorization, used them to train OpenAI’s models, and then generated infringing outputs through products including ChatGPT.[2] OpenAI responded that the Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) failed to plausibly allege substantial similarity and did not provide sufficiently concrete examples of allegedly infringing outputs to permit that analysis.[3]

As the Court explained, a prima facie infringement claim requires showing that (i) the defendant actually copied the Plaintiffs’ works and (ii) the copying is unlawful because the defendant’s work is substantially similar to the protectable elements of the Plaintiffs’ works.[4]

I. Actual Copying

The Court held that Plaintiffs adequately alleged actual copying at the pleading stage.[5] Accepting the allegations as true, the Complaint squarely alleges OpenAI’s access to Plaintiffs’ books through the training datasets and that the challenged ChatGPT outputs were based on those works.

II. Substantial Similarity

The Court further concluded that a reasonable jury could find substantial similarity between certain ChatGPT outputs and Plaintiffs’ works.[6] Because novels contain both protectable and unprotectable elements, the Court applied the “more discerning observer” test.[7] This test asks “whether there exists ‘substantial similarity between those elements, and only those elements, that provide copyrightability to the allegedly infringed’ works.”[8] Focusing exclusively on protectable elements, the Court determined that the setting, plot, and characters were copyrightable, and that the ChatGPT-generated summaries included “many specific details drawn from the original works…such as the names and traits of characters as well as key plot points.”[9]

By way of illustration, the Court discussed two outputs tied to George R.R. Martin’s works.[10] First, it reproduced a ChatGPT-generated summary of A Game of Thrones, concluding that the summary tracked specific protected elements, including Ned Stark’s appointment as Hand, Bran’s fall after witnessing Cersei and Jaime’s incest, political betrayals in King’s Landing, Daenerys’s storyline culminating in the hatching of dragons, and Jon Snow’s service in the Night’s Watch.[11] Second, it addressed ChatGPT’s outline for an alternative sequel, “A Dance with Shadows,” to A Clash of Kings, which copied Martin’s key characters and story structure, including characters such as Tyrion, Sansa, Robb, Daenerys, Cersei, and Jon, as well as the series’ signature settings.[12]

The Court distinguished these fiction outputs from summaries of factual news content, noting that, unlike mere recitations of unprotectable facts, the ChatGPT outputs at issue incorporated expressive elements, including plot, characters, themes, and tone, drawn from Plaintiffs’ works.[13]

III. Denial of Motion to Dismiss

Concluding that the Complaint adequately alleges both actual copying and substantial similarity as to certain outputs, the Court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss.[14] The Court expressly declined to opine on fair use, stating that “[n]othing in this Opinion is intended to suggest a view on whether the allegedly infringing outputs are protected as fair uses of the original works,” which will require a fact-intensive inquiry at a later stage.[15]

IV. Conclusion

The decision confirms that authors can plausibly state infringement claims against AI developers where the alleged outputs appropriate protectable elements of their works. It also signals that courts may permit such claims to proceed beyond the pleadings when plaintiffs identify specific outputs that plausibly mirror the selection, coordination, and arrangement of protected expression.

Cullen and Dykman’s Intellectual Property team continues to monitor important developments in trademark and copyright law. Should you have any questions about this legal alert, please feel free to contact Karen Levin (klevin@cullenllp.com) at (516) 296-9110, Ariel Ronneburger (aronneburger@cullenllp.com) at (516) 296-9182, or Jordan Milite (jmilite@cullenllp.com) at (516) 296-9128.

This advisory provides a brief overview of the most significant changes in the law and does not constitute legal advice. Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship between the sender and recipient.

Footnotes

[1] Authors Guild et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al., No. 25-md-3143 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025).

[2] Id. at 2.

[3] Id. at 3.

[4] Id. at 4 (citing Yurman Designs, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101, 110 (2d Cir. 2001)).

[5] Authors Guild et al., No. 25-md-3143 at 10.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 3.

[8] Id. at 10 (citing Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 262, 272 (2d Cir. 2001)).

[9] Id. at 11 (citing Penguin Random House LLC v. Colting, 270 F. Supp. 3d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)).

[10] Authors Guild et al., No. 25-md-3143 at 14-17.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 14 (comparing N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 777 F. Supp. 3d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2025)).

[14] Authors Guild et al., No. 25-md-3143 at 19.

[15] Id. at 17.