Microsoft Employee’s Internal Remark Appears in Publishers’ Dispute with OpenAI

Brent Hecht appears in newly unredacted passages of a filing by publishers in the dispute against OpenAI and Microsoft. On September 17, publishers including The New York Times released a version of their motion for summary judgment in federal proceedings that also contains quotes from internal discussions.

The filing attributes to Brent Hecht, Microsoft’s director of Applied Science, a remark that people might view the mass collection of other people’s work as “the greatest theft of labor in human history.” Microsoft responded that this was an individual employee’s opinion, not a legal conclusion or the company’s position.

Brent Hecht and Microsoft’s Position

The remark appeared in proceedings in which publishers challenge the use of their copyrighted content in developing and operating artificial intelligence systems. The filing itself does not mean that Microsoft acknowledged copyright infringement or adopted the assessment attributed to Hecht as its official position.

It is also necessary to distinguish between the content of a court filing and established facts. In the document, the publishers present their own claims and arguments. The court has not yet ruled that OpenAI or Microsoft infringed copyrights, or that the specific practices described by the plaintiffs were unlawful.

Argument About Traffic to News Websites

According to the publishers, the less-redacted document also contains claims about internal discussions at OpenAI and Microsoft. Among other things, they concern fears that artificial intelligence products could replace visits to original news websites.

This issue is central to the dispute over so-called fair use, the principle OpenAI invokes when defending its training of generative AI. OpenAI continues to reject the claims on its website and states that training generative AI is a transformative use protected by fair use.

The publishers, by contrast, use the unsealed passages as part of their argument about the possible replacement of their content in the market. The effect on the market for the original work is among the important questions in assessing fair use.

What the Filing Does Not Yet Confirm

Broader allegations that have appeared in the dispute — such as bypassing paywalls, removing copyright information or exchanging data between companies — remain claims by the plaintiffs in the court filing. They are not independently confirmed facts established by the court.

It is likewise unconfirmed whether Hecht’s remark described specific practices by Microsoft or OpenAI. It may have expressed a general reputational or ethical concern rather than an assessment of a specific action. Simplified headlines presenting the quote as Microsoft’s position therefore do not reflect the company’s position stated in response to the released passages.

Next Steps in the Dispute

Attention is now focused on the full text of the filings and any further unsealing in In re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation. OpenAI and Microsoft’s responses to the publishers’ arguments and the federal court’s decision on the motions for summary judgment will also be important.

The case concerns the boundaries of fair use when training AI on copyrighted content and future licensing relationships between AI companies and publishers. The released internal quote is relevant to the publishers’ arguments, but it is neither a company admission nor a court verdict.

Verified and updated: 09/18/2026 15:26