-
EVOX Productions, maker of car images, enlists 3rd law firm to files its 4th copyright suit v. AI training use. This one v. Midjourney.
Read more: EVOX Productions, maker of car images, enlists 3rd law firm to files its 4th copyright suit v. AI training use. This one v. Midjourney.EVOX Productions, the professional maker of car images, has just sued Midjourney for alleged infringement based on unauthorized use of their images contained without permission in the LAION dataset. This is the 130th copyright lawsuit against AI companies in the United States. This is EVOX Productions’ fourth such lawsuit. relying on 3 different firms. The…
-
AI companies now asserting counterclaims v. Copyright Holders. Anthropic adopts new strategy in AI copyright suits
Read more: AI companies now asserting counterclaims v. Copyright Holders. Anthropic adopts new strategy in AI copyright suitsNanoble, represented by Quinn Emanuel, may have started a trend in the AI copyright litigation. Nanoble filed an indemnity counterclaim against Disney for allegedly violating the terms of use required by Nanoble’s AI video generator. We can read more about that strategy here: Now, Anthropic has filed a counterclaim of non-infringement against Bartz v. Anthropic…
-
Former Wall St. Journal writer Philip Shishkin drops copyright claim v. Anthropic
Read more: Former Wall St. Journal writer Philip Shishkin drops copyright claim v. AnthropicCuriously, book author and former Wall Street Journal Philip Shishkin has voluntarily dropped his copyright claim against Anthropic in the lawsuit with lead plaintiff Cambronne or John Carreyrou. Shishkin gave no reason for dropping for copyright claim against Anthropic. The other plaintiffs remain. DOWNLOAD:
-
Anthropic opposes
Read more: Anthropic opposesAnthropic opposes the motion of various plaintiffs in the Cambronne, Cognella, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Kwon, and Cruz lawsuits to consolidate the briefing for motions to dismiss in all the related cases. Anthropic argues that the respective complaints have their own deficiencies and lumping everything into 1 brief would not be effective or efficient.…
-
NYT spent $20 million for its 1 lawsuit v. OpenAI. How much has OpenAI spent defending v. 22 suits in U.S. plus 8 foreign suits?
Read more: NYT spent $20 million for its 1 lawsuit v. OpenAI. How much has OpenAI spent defending v. 22 suits in U.S. plus 8 foreign suits?A.G. Sulzberger said the New York Times has spent $20 million on its 1 copyright lawsuit against OpenAI, a case nearing the summary judgment stage. (Unclear the exact breakdown on costs for that $20 million.) How much has OpenAI spent to defend v. 22 suits in US and 8 foreign suits around world? For this…
-
Google suffers another legal setback as Judge Breyer grants David Greene’s “voice likeness” case back to state court. Not preempted by Copyright Act.
Read more: Google suffers another legal setback as Judge Breyer grants David Greene’s “voice likeness” case back to state court. Not preempted by Copyright Act.Google suffered another legal setback. First, its case against SerpApi was dismissed. And now David Greene’s lawsuit against Google was just remanded back to state court. Judge Breyer held the claims were based on “voice likeness” outputs, and not inputs used to train Google’s AI models. Therefore, they were not preempted by the Copyright Act.…
-
India Delhi High Court rejects injunction, ruling OpenAI likely did not infringe news agency ANI Media’s copyright. AI training is prima facie fair dealing under India copyright law. Court cites Bartz, Kadrey, Google Books decisions.
Read more: India Delhi High Court rejects injunction, ruling OpenAI likely did not infringe news agency ANI Media’s copyright. AI training is prima facie fair dealing under India copyright law. Court cites Bartz, Kadrey, Google Books decisions.The High Court of Delhi in India just published a major ruling holding that, on the motion for preliminary injunction, OpenAI did not infringe the copyright of news agency ANI Media. The High Court held it was prima facie fair dealing under India’s Section 52(1)(a) to use copyrighted works to train AI models. Plus, the…
-
Citing Supreme Court’s decision in Cox, Midjourney asks for judgment on the pleadings that Disney’s contributory infringement claim fails as a matter of law
Read more: Citing Supreme Court’s decision in Cox, Midjourney asks for judgment on the pleadings that Disney’s contributory infringement claim fails as a matter of lawThe fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment continues. Following OpenAI’s successful strategy, Midjourney has asked the court for judgment on the pleadings and a ruling that Disney’s claim of contributory infringement fails as a matter of law. Judge Kronstadt presides. Excerpt: DOWNLOAD MIDJOURNEY’S MOTION: Related Story:
-
News Corp. files copyright infringement counterclaims v. Brave Software in revived lawsuit
Read more: News Corp. files copyright infringement counterclaims v. Brave Software in revived lawsuitNews Corp. filed copyright infringement counterclaims to Brave Software’s declaratory judgment of non-infringement action. This case was voluntarily dismissed in 2025 but then refiled in May 2026 by Brave Software. (We are still counting this as one case from the first filing.) Excerpt: DOWNLOAD NEWS CORP. ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS