It’s a day after what feels like the most stunning hearing in any of the 50 copyright lawsuits against AI companies. Yesterday, Judge Alsup aired his list of many “grievances” on the Bartz book authors’ proposed class action settlement for an estimated $1.5 billion, the largest copyright settlement in U.S. history.
“We’ll see if I can hold my nose and approve it.”
judge william alsup
For a summary of the hearing:
After having secured that historic settlement, plaintiffs interim lead class attorney Justin Nelson probably wasn’t expecting what was widely reported as a withering critique by Judge Alsup on missing information (Works List), the mechanics of the claims process and the form, and the enlistment of an “army” of outside attorneys and consultants. [AP News; Bloomberg Law]
“I have an uneasy feeling about all the hangers on in the shadows,’” Judge Alsup warned, apparently referring to the new outside attorneys and consultants the class counsel enlisted. The Judge reminded Nelson he’s the lead class counsel.
Indeed, the Judge was so worried he summoned representatives of this newly enlisted cadre to appear at the hearing so they could listen to his withering criticism. On the eve of the hearing, the Judge issued an order stating: “Counsel for both sides shall appear. So shall at least one lawyer from each of the law firms prospectively involved as Authors’ Coordination Counsel (Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard LLP and Fairmark Partners LLP) and as Publishers’ Coordination Counsel (Edelson PC and Oppenheim + Zebrak, LLP). Finally, it is strongly recommended that Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger and Association of American Publishers CEO Maria Pallante attend.”
None of these lawyers or CEOs spoke at the hearing, but they all had to listen to 54 minutes of criticisms and concerns, including about their own roles in the class action.
That public scrutiny must have been hard to swallow. The AP later reported statements from both Authors Guild and Pallante.
According to AP, Rasenberger’s statement: “In a statement issued after the hearing the Authors Guild said it was ‘confused’ about Alsup’s concern that it might be secretly trying to undermine some of the writers represented in the settlement. The Authors Guild said its work on the settlement is designed “to ensure that authors’ interests are fully represented” while contributing its expertise to “the discussions with complete transparency.”
Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger said the Guild was “confused” by the court’s suggestion that the Guild and AAP were working behind the scenes in ways that could pressure authors to accept the settlement “when that is precisely the opposite of our proposed role as informational advisors to the working group.”
Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger, in publishers weekly
The goal … “is to ensure that authors’ interests are fully represented and to bring our expertise… to the discussions with complete transparency. There are industry norms that we want to make sure are accounted for.”
“Our mission is to protect all authors and the profession of writing generally. We are a not for profit and will not benefit from the settlement other than to fulfill our mission.”
According to AP, Pallante’s statement: “The court seems to be envisioning a claims process that would be unworkable, and sees a world with collateral litigation between authors and publishers for years to come,” Pallante said. “Class actions are supposed to resolve cases, not create new disputes, and certainly not between the class members who were harmed in the first place.”
“The Association of American Publishers and the Authors’ Guild are not-for-profits that have worked hard to support counsel in the case and to make sure that authors and publishers have the information they need.
AAP CEO Maria Pallante , reported in publishers weekly
“Unfortunately, the Court today demonstrated a lack of understanding of how the publishing industry works.
“It’s critical that the number of works included in the settlement is complete, and the Court’s reluctance to give the parties time to do that—without any explanation—is troubling. Similarly, the Court seems to be envisioning a claims process that would be unworkable, and sees a world with collateral litigation between authors and publishers for years to come.
“Class actions are supposed to resolve cases, not create new disputes, and certainly not between the class members who were harmed in the first place. We’re committed to continuing to work with the Authors’ Guild and other stakeholders to decide the best way to proceed; and we’re hopeful that the Court will be open to understanding what it seems to be missing about this industry.”
Related Posts