According to Annelise Levy of Bloomberg Law, Judge Alsup just approved the $1.5 billion class action settlement, the largest ever for a copyright lawsuit. The Judge called it “fair,” which is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) (“fair, reasonable, and adequate”).
Justin Nelson, the lead plaintiffs’ attorney from Susman Godfrey, reportedly described the settlement to Judge Alsup, “This provides finality. It provide certainty….We believe it is a homerun settlement for all class members.”
Credit should go to the plaintiffs’ side and their attorneys for addressing all of Judge Alsup’s many concerns and long list of questions. The approval was, by no means, assured after Judge Alsup didn’t approve the proposed settlement 2 weeks ago.
The settlement was “the largest copyright recovery of all time.“
Justin Nelson, Susman Godfrey
The parties have now passed a giant hurdle. But there’s a lot of work left to be done.
As for Judge Alsup, he told the parties again that he planned to go inactive by the end of the year, in which case a new judge would be assigned if he does.
Judge Alsup adjourned the hearing, after saying, “I’ve learned a lot.”
“We have some of the best lawyers in America in the courtroom right now and I think you can do it.”
Judge Alsup speaking on overseeing the class claims process in an ethical way
Here is the schedule:
This settlement sets a benchmark for other AI copyright litigation, especially other lawsuits filed by book authors, such as the proposed class actions against OpenAI (more on that later).
You can register in the class by going to the class website here:
From the brief:
For works where there are multiple claimants, Class Counsel have proposed—after
extensive consultation with authors and publishers groups—a distribution plan and Claim Form
that allow most claimants to choose a non-mandatory default split of 50-50. Ex. 1 ((POA&D)
¶ 4(a)(i)).
The default 50-50 split reflects a common, recurring term in trade and university press
contracts addressing how author and publisher divide the proceeds of infringement litigation. Any claimant, however, can de-select that default by indicating that the claimant has a different contractual arrangement that it seeks to pursue. Id. ¶ 4(e). For education works,2
more individualized determination of the proper allocation of the award will occur. Id. ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Claim Form also allows claimants to indicate that they are the sole owners of the work,
for example because rights have reverted to the authors, rights have terminated, the book was selfpublished, or the book was a work-for-hire. See Ex. 1 ((POA&D) ¶ 4). These procedures reflect the typical contractual relationships between authors and publishers in these contexts, as supported by Class Counsel’s own review of many of those contracts; the contracts of the named Plaintiffs in
this case; and the experience of industry experts and stakeholders.
Accordingly, the proposed distribution plan does “not involve the publishers trying to force every publisher to do the same thing”; does “not force every author to do the same thing”; and does “not require any global deal.” Transcript of September 8 Hearing (at 19:6–9, 20:17–18) (The Court). Exactly the opposite.
Here’s the official entry on the docket for Judge Alsup’s approval: “The Court granted preliminary approval to the class settlement, preliminary approval to the plan of distribution, and preliminary approval to the plan for notice. Parties to comply with the Courts directives as stated on the record.”
Total Time in Court: 1:00 – 1:30 = 30 Minutes. Court Reporter: Marla Knox. Plaintiffs Attorneys: Justin Nelson, Rachel Geman, J. Craig Smyser, Samir Doshi, Elizabeth Cabraser, Daniel Hutchinson, Jalle Dafa. Defendant Attorneys: Daralyn Durie, Doug Winthrop, Devon Hanley Cook, Joseph Farris, Jeff Bleich (general counsel).Also Present:Plaintiffs: Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, Kirk W. Johnson.Publishers Coordinating Counsel: Matthew Oppenheim, Jeff Gould, Jay Edelson, J. Eli Wade-Scott.Claims Administrator: Jennifer Keough.”
Related Stories