The package’s author falsely equates gen AI training with a bootleg soundtrack. Wrong. A near identical push for such new law was tanked as anti-innovation by 120+ nations 30 years ago in the WIPO Copyright Treaty negotiations.
History *should* repeat. Sources:
t.co/vyzueO2OQt
x.com/Law360/statu...
Subscribers can read @InbarPreiss.com's full report for @MLex.com here: www.mlex.com/mlex/articl...
The Court now awaits the non-binding recommendations of Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, which are expected in 6 months.
Lastly, the Court heard argument on whether @Google.com's use of © material for gen AI training falls within the EU's current commercial "text and data mining" exception to © law (Article 4 of the EU Directive on © in the Digital Single Market). At least one judge may be skeptical:
Even more fundamentally, judges heard from counsel to the EU and their own legal services that this case may not be appropriate to resolve large open questions re © and gen AI training writ large and may not be admissible for ruling on what should be publishers narrow rights:
"Territoriality" also was hotly contested: whether @Google.com is liable under EU law for "infringing" acts lawfully undertaken outside the EU where its models were trained, e.g. lawful though unauthorized fair use in the US. @Google.com said no; the EU and some member states advised yes.
@Google.com counsel reportedly expounded on the point:
Most significantly, publishers claim on inference that @Google.com's gen AI models *must* illegally make and store copies of their works b/c they allegedly can be prompted to generate some text from some works, but @Google.com explained that's falsely premised and factually untrue:
There are multiple big issues at stake and a threshold question of whether the case is even admissible for decision, as @MLex.com reports:
@Google.com and Hungarian publishers reportedly clashed today before the EU's highest court in a case with huge *potential* to define or even remake EU © law as plaintiffs urge; @Google.com argues the CJEU needn't and shouldn't.... 👀🧵⤵️
The case is Gracenote Media Services, LLC v. OpenAI Foundation, 1:26-cv-01947, (S.D.N.Y.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/7238...
Plaintiff wants the Court to compel @OpenAI.com to destroy all models "that incorporate GraceNote data" and, naturally, an injunction and damages of all available stripes:
@GraceNoteData.com elaborates:
NEW OPENAI © CASE: Nielsen company @GracenoteData.com has just sued @OpenAI.com in the SDNY for direct, vicarious and contributory © infringement for use of its descriptive media content in training its gen AI models and based on the models' outputs, which it claims "memorize" and "regurgitate":
The massive MDL case is: In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, 1:25-md-03143, (S.D.N.Y.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6987...
Judge Wang's Order is online here: www.courtlistener.com/docket/6987...
NEW and BIG: 88 million MORE de-identified user logs must be produced by @OpenAI.com, Judge Wang's just ruled in granting plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. A key employee's journal also must be handed over. That brings to over 100 million the number of logs subject to discovery!
The Kleiner case is Kleiner v. Adobe Inc., 5:26-cv-01218, (N.D. Cal.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/7225...
The case is Lyon v. Adobe Inc., 3:25-cv-10732, (N.D. Cal.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/7204...
The new Motion to Relate is online via ECF here: ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035026...
@Adobe.com's moved, with plaintiffs' assent, to "relate" last December's NDCA Lyon suit against them by multiple authors in Lyon with the effectively identical action filed there in February in the Kleiner. It's early days in both cases so no key dates in either yet:
Judge Wang's Order, also setting depo dates for multiple former senior @OpenAI.com legal and tech execs, is online here:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6987...
The consolidated case docket is In Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, 1:25-md-03143, (S.D.N.Y.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6987...
There won't be red carpets, but March will see the Oscars *and* multiple AI stars deposed in Judges Stein and Wang's massive SDNY MDL v @OpenAI.com. Per an Order today, look for OpenAI founders Dario Amodei's on 3/27 and Ilya Sutskever's on 3/27. Mega-author @JohnGrisham.com's on 3/23.
The case is UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., 1:24-cv-11611, (D. Mass.)
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6887...
The Parties' 2/25 Joint Motion is online at:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6887...
Two weeks ago parties to @UMG.com v @Suno.com asked for more time, mostly to allow reply filings to expert reports likely bearing on @Suno's assertion of fair use. Judge Saylor just approved many new deadlines, setting Jan 8, 2027 for summary judgment and other "dispositive" motions:
FLASH: Friday, @UMG's EVP told investors that fringe theoretical "AI slop" arguments of market harm in its suit v @Suno are actual garbage, w/data to prove it!
New case math: Hugely transformative tech + zero market impact = fair use on summary judgment: progresschamber.org/news/univers...
The case, filed 3/6 but not yet in the ECF or Courtlistener archives, is Kogon v Google, 1:26-cv-02582 (N.D. Ill).
The Complaint, for those with access to Bloomberg Law or other paywalled sites is here: cdn.bloomberglaw.com/cosmos/blob...
