In Andersen v. Stability AI, the hearing on the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint is today, May 8, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. PDT. “This proceeding will be held in a hybrid format. Counsel have requested to appear in person to argue the motion. This request is granted, and counsel may appear in Courtroom 2 on the 17th Floor in San Francisco. The hearing will also be streamed via videoconference.
“Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.”
Public Hearings
Public Hearings with Judge William H. Orrick
Please click the link below to join webinars (public hearings). If you are a case participant, you will join as an attendee, then you will be brought into the proceeding by court staff.
Click Zoom link: https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1611812513?pwd=anFJWCtUaHVhY2RYLzNtVDMxU3NVQT09
Webinar ID: 161 181 2513
Password: 478314
Summary of Judge Orrick’s tentative rulings
Copyright claims allowed? Judge Orrick has indicated that he’s “inclined to DENY all motions to dismiss the direct and induced infringement claims under the Copyright Act. Beyond the Training Images theory (that suffices for direct infringement as to Stability, Runway, and Midjourney), plaintiffs have plausibly alleged facts to suggest compress copies, or effective compressed copies albeit stored as mathematical information, of their works are contained in the versions of Stable Diffusion identified. At this juncture, plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed with discovery. The facts regarding how the diffusion models operate, or are operated by the defendants, should be tested at summary judgment against various direct and induced infringement theories and precedent under the Copyright Act.
DMCA claims dismissed?: Judge Orrick is “inclined to GRANT the motions to dismiss all DMCA claims. Under (a), the license disclosures were not made “in connection with” plaintiffs’ works. Under (b), the Court is inclined to follow the decision in Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., No. 22-CV-06823-JST, 2024 WL 235217, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024), regarding the identicality requirement.”
False endorsement and trade dress allowed? Judge Orrick is “inclined to DENY Midjourney’s motion to dismiss the false endorsement and trade dress claims.”
Contract claims dismissed? Judge Orrick “is inclined to GRANT DeviantArt’s motion to dismiss the contract claim for express breach and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, consistent with my analysis from the October 2023 Order.”
