the AI legal case tracker (updates on key media and entertainment focused generative AI cases) (as of 7/19/24)
the AI legal case tracker (updates on key media and entertainment focused generative AI cases) (as of 7/19/24)
Here are the latest updates on the key generative AI focused copyright infringement-related cases that impact media & entertainment (as of 7/19/24).
(1) The New York Times v. Microsoft & OpenAI
Background: This is perhaps THE case of all cases in the pantheon of litigation involving copyright owners and generative AI tech companies. Here The Times filed its lawsuit in the federal courts of New York (Southern District) on December 27, 2023 for mass copyright infringement and other related claims), asserting that OpenAI “trained” its generative AI on “millions” of its copyrighted articles without consent and payment (and Microsoft enabled the infringement). In its pleading tour de force (one that serves as a master class for all future plaintiffs in these types of AI infringement cases), The Times also asserts that Microsoft and OpenAI are trying to build a “market substitute” for its news and, also notably, that their AI generates “hallucinations” based on The Times’ articles that substantially damage its reputation and brand. The Times seeks “billions of dollars of statutory and actual damages.” Microsoft and OpenAI will, of course, claim “fair use” - i.e., no license, payment or consent is needed.
Current Status: No major new developments this past week. Previously, on June 27th, The New York Times filed its response to OpenAI’s pending motion (which Microsoft joined) to consolidate the related cases in order to simplify discovery and for other pre-trial purposes (and related filings are happening right now). Previously, on May 20th, The New York Times filed a motion to file a First Amended Complaint. Before that, on May 3rd, the court set several important timing deadlines. Most significantly, motions for summary judgment must be filed not later than January 7th, 2025 (note: 2025). Earlier this year, on April 1st, the court denied the attempt by the California federal court Sarah Silverman plaintiffs (discussed in the summaries below) to dismiss, pause or transfer this The New York Times case to California because similar issues are at play. Silverman and the other artists had asked for this relief because they believe the California court will be more sympathetic to their claims. And on April 15th, the Silverman plaintiffs filed an “interlocutory appeal” to challenge the court’s decision. That is still pending.
Read my deep dive analysis of - and prediction for - the case and its ultimate resolution here.
(2) UMG Recordings v. Suno
Background: The RIAA on behalf of the major record labels filed their lawsuit in the federal district court in Massachusetts on June 24, 2024, for mass copyright infringement and related claims based on alleged training on their copyrighted works.
Current Status: No major developments this past week. On July 10th, 2024, the court give defendants until August 1st to either answer or respond to the complaint. If defendants choose to file a motion to dismiss, then plaintiffs will have until August 29th to file their reply brief.
(3) UMG Recordings v. Uncharted Labs (d/b/a Udio)
Background: The RIAA on behalf of the major record labels filed this companion lawsuit in the federal courts of New York (Southern District) on June 24, 2024, for mass copyright infringement and related claims based on alleged training on their copyrighted works.
Current Status: No major developments this past week. On July 11th, 2024, the court give defendants until August 1st to either answer or respond to the complaint. If defendants choose to file a motion to dismiss, then plaintiffs will have until August 29th to file their reply brief.
(4) Universal Music Group, et al. v. Anthropic
Background: UMG, Concord Music and several other major music companies sued Amazon-backed OpenAI competitor Anthropic on October 18, 2023 in a Tennessee federal court (Middle District of Tennessee). The music companies assert that Anthropic is infringing their music lyric copyrights on a massive scale by scraping the entire web to train its AI, essentially sucking up their copyrighted lyrics into its vortex – all without any licensing, consent or payment.
Current Status: No major developments this past week. On June 24, 2024, the court granted in part - and denied in part - Anthropic's motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue. The federal judge (Middle District of Tennessee) ordered the case to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was formally transfered to the California federal court on June 26th and closed in Tennessee. Previously, the federal judge in Tennessee had set the trial date for November 18, 2025. It’s unclear what the current status will be now, since the transfer just happened.
Read my deep dive analysis of - and prediction for - the case and its ultimate resolution here.
(5) Sarah Silverman, et al. v. OpenAI (class action lawsuit)
Background: Comedian Sarah Silverman and other artists filed this class action lawsuit in a California federal court (Northern District of California), asserting copyright infringement claims similar to those in The New York Times case (discussed below) and in their separate California federal court case against Meta (also below). They are asking the judge in The Times’ New York case to put a halt to that case until this one plays out due to their similar issues.
Current Status: This past week, on July 15th, the court scheduled the next settlement conference for September 13th. The most important development previously was on April 15th, at which time OpenAI filed its reply brief to the plaintiffs’ opposition to OpenAI’s motion to dismiss their Amended Complaint (OpenAI had filed its motion to dismiss on March 27th). Before that, on April 1st (and per my summary above), these California plaintiffs failed in their bid to convince the New York federal court to defer to their case here. Months earlier, on February 12, 2024, the federal judge dismissed most of the Silverman plaintiffs’ claims against OpenAI, rejecting her argument that the content generated by ChatGPT (i.e., the “output”) infringes her copyrighted works because there is no “substantial similarity” (and, therefore, no meaningful harm). But the court gave the Silverman plaintiff group an opportunity to amend their complaint to plead a more direct link of harm - and they filed their amended complaint on March 13th. OpenAI’s motion to dismiss is pending.
My prediction is that the judge won’t change his mind with respect to the amended complaint, and that he’ll permanently dismiss all claims on the “output” side of the equation. I also predict he will dismiss most, if not all, claims based on OpenAI’s unlicensed training on the “input” side. The court hasn’t yet ruled on the “input” side of the equation - whether OpenAI’s mass “training” of its generated AI on their copyrighted works without consent is infringement.
Read my deep dive analysis of the case, the court’s initial rulings, and what they portend here.
(6) Sarah Silverman, et al. v. Meta (class action lawsuit)
Background: In this similar class action to her lawsuit filed against OpenAI (discussed above), Sarah Silverman and others sued Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta on July 7, 2023 in another federal court (again Northern District of California) for mass infringement - i.e., unlicensed “training” of their generative AI on millions of copyrighted works, including their own. Not surprisingly, Meta’s defense is “fair use.”
Current Status: No major new developments this past week. On July 5th, two of the individual plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Meta, but the case continues with respect to the other plaintiffs. As mentioned above, earlier on April 1st, these California plaintiffs failed in their bid to convince the New York federal court to defer to their case here. Apart from that, much like in Silverman’s case against OpenAI, and for similar reasons, on November 2023, the judge dismissed the bulk of her claims against Meta. But much like in the OpenAI case, the judge gave the Silverman plaintiffs a chance to amend their complaint to add a more direct link to actual harm (and they filed their amended complaint in December 2023). The re-hearing on Meta’s attempt to dismiss the Silverman’s lawsuit is pending.
Much like in the OpenAI case above, my prediction is that the judge here won’t change his mind and most of Silverman’s case will be dismissed pre-trial.
Read my deep dive analysis of the case, the court’s initial rulings, and what they portend here.
(7) Getty Images v. Midjourney and Stability AI
Background: Getty Images sued generative AI text-to-image companies Midjourney and Stability AI on February 3, 2023 in a Delaware federal court for mass infringement of its copyrighted photographic library. Getty’s claims are similar to those in The New York Times v. Microsoft & OpenAI case above, but here they are in the context of visual images instead of written articles - i.e., unlicensed scraping by their AI with an intent to compete directly with, and profit fro, Getty Images (i.e., market substitution).
Current Status: No major new developments this past week. Previously, on July 8th, and after the court granted it the ability to do so, Getty Images filed its Second Amended Complaint. And before that, the judge has denied the Midjourney defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. But the judge gave them a chance to try again after some procedural matters are resolved.
Read more about the case and its background and overall context here.
If you would like to recommend a case to track - or offer your special insights to any of these cases - reach out to Peter Csathy at peter@creativemedia.biz. And reach out to Peter to explore his firm, Creative Media’s, legal and business AI advisory services.
