New year, new list. We updated the Master List of Copyright Lawsuits against AI companies. The current total is 38 lawsuits, some of which are consolidated before the same judge and in the same proceeding.
With our update, we changed the order of cases to start with the Northern District of California, which has the most lawsuits (20), and then proceed with the jurisdiction with the next most lawsuits to the least.
We also grouped and higlighted consolidate cases, and also updated the attorneys.
Keeping the original link, you can visit the updated list here.
One response to “Updated the Master List of AI copyright lawsuits. Current total 38.”
Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C., 1:23-cv-03122, (N.D. Ga.)
This case was recently updated with a text-only entry reading “Civil Case Terminated. (jpk)”. No parallel update in Mark Walters v. OpenAI, L.L.C., 23-13843, (11th Cir.). Unknown if the case continues in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, GA ( case: 3-A-04860-2 )
Basbanes v. Microsoft Corporation, 1:24-cv-00084, (S.D.N.Y.)
Though listed as consolidated into Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 1:23-cv-08292, (S.D.N.Y.). This is not fully correct. The Basbanes case has been stayed pending the result of class certification in this action, but is not technically consolidated.
As Defamation is not technically a copyright issue, but the Walters case is listed, other cases that may be of interest:
Battle v. Microsoft Corporation, 1:23-cv-01822, (D. Maryland)
Sent to arbitration, and the case is stayed until that is resolved.
Kyland Young v. NeoCortext, Inc., 2:23-cv-02496, (C.D. Cal.) – Plaintiff as depicted in existing material is offered as a template for a face-swapping app. Plaintiff believes it violates the California Right of Publicity statute. Defendant believes, among other, that this is a matter of federal copyright law which would preempt the state statute.
Kyland Young v. NeoCortext, Inc., 23-55772, (9th Cir.) – Related appeals court case.
You have also covered Allen v. Perlmutter, 1:24-cv-02665, (D. Colo.) and THALER v. PERLMUTTER, 1:22-cv-01564, (D.D.C.) (+THALER v. PERLMUTTER, 1:22-cv-01564, (D.D.C.)), but didn’t include them in this list. Although these are not lawsuits against AI companies, I think they are sufficiently related to include in the list (see also the defamation argument).
Further removed from copyright matters:
United States v. SMITH, 1:24-cr-00504, (S.D.N.Y.)
Did cover, not listed. Automated plays of ai-generated music submitted to services in an alleged get-rich-quick money laundering scheme, et alia.
Harris v. Adams, 1:24-cv-12437, (D. Mass.)
Did not cover. Student using ai in homework and the – plaintiff-alleged unjust – consequences thereof.
Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., 6:24-cv-01903, (M.D. Fla.)
A.F., on behalf of J.F. v. CHARACTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 2:24-cv-01014, (E.D. Tex.)
Both covered, neither listed – harm to users of the Character.ai simulated persona chat service.
OpenAI, Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc., 4:23-cv-03918, (N.D. Cal.)
Did not cover. Trademark dispute that has been going for far longer than it has any right to.