From 0e913c9ba499179aaa933b48c4469286b61b2b30 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ron Teitelbaum Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2026 12:33:45 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Add sourced AI copyright cases from primary court records. Co-authored-by: Cursor --- .../legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md | 34 + .../SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md | 36 + .../legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md | 37 + .../legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md | 35 + .../legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md | 34 + .../SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md | 36 + .../legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md | 36 + .../legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md | 37 + .../legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md | 37 + .../SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md | 34 + .../SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md | 36 + .../legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md | 36 + .../SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md | 36 + .../SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md | 36 + .../legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md | 36 + .../legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md | 36 + .../legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md | 36 + .../legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md | 36 + .../legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md | 36 + .../legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md | 35 + .../SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md | 37 + generated/bibliography.json | 907 +++++++++++++++- generated/citations.json | 990 ++++++++++++++++++ generated/glossary.json | 957 ++++++++++++++++- generated/handbook.json | 194 +++- generated/relationships.json | 680 ++++++++++++ generated/retrieval.json | 2 +- generated/retrieval.jsonl | 43 +- generated/review-status.json | 41 +- generated/timeline.json | 58 +- generated/used-for.json | 109 +- knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md | 101 ++ knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md | 69 ++ knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md | 63 +- knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md | 80 ++ knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md | 85 ++ .../legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md | 84 ++ knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md | 14 +- knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md | 107 ++ knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md | 81 ++ knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md | 86 ++ knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md | 84 ++ knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md | 28 +- knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md | 80 ++ knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md | 146 ++- knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md | 152 ++- knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md | 40 +- website/generated/bibliography.md | 297 +++++- website/generated/citations.md | 197 +++- website/generated/glossary.md | 100 +- website/generated/handbook.md | 221 +++- website/generated/print-handbook.md | 433 +++++++- website/generated/relationship-graph.md | 4 +- website/generated/relationships.md | 342 +++++- website/generated/review-status.md | 103 +- .../legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md | 57 + .../SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md | 59 ++ .../legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md | 60 ++ .../legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md | 58 + .../legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md | 57 + .../SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md | 59 ++ .../legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md | 59 ++ .../legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md | 60 ++ .../legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md | 60 ++ .../SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md | 57 + .../SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md | 59 ++ .../legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md | 59 ++ .../SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md | 59 ++ .../SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md | 59 ++ .../legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md | 59 ++ .../legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md | 59 ++ .../legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md | 59 ++ .../legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md | 59 ++ .../legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md | 59 ++ .../legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md | 58 + .../SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md | 60 ++ .../legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md | 123 +++ .../knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md | 90 ++ .../legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md | 71 +- .../legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md | 101 ++ .../knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md | 107 ++ .../legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md | 106 ++ .../knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md | 20 +- .../knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md | 129 +++ .../legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md | 103 ++ .../knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md | 108 ++ .../knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md | 106 ++ .../knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md | 34 +- .../knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md | 101 ++ .../knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md | 152 ++- .../knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md | 160 ++- .../legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md | 46 +- website/generated/timeline.md | 32 +- website/generated/used-for.md | 89 +- 94 files changed, 10413 insertions(+), 230 deletions(-) create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md create mode 100644 bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md create mode 100644 knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md create mode 100644 knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md create mode 100644 knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md create mode 100644 knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md create mode 100644 knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md create mode 100644 knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md create mode 100644 knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md create mode 100644 knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md create mode 100644 knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md create mode 100644 knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md create mode 100644 website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1ac0b00d --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +id: SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET +title: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201) +type: source +status: draft +summary: CourtListener docket for the visual-artists putative class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener / PACER) +- Publication date: 2023-01-13 +- Source type: Public docket +- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66732129/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd/ +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP for No. 3:23-cv-00201. Reliable for filing date, later docket events, and the August 12, 2024 MTD-order entry as of the access date. Not a substitute for the order PDF or later operative complaints. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..97e5463d --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 +title: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Northern District of California order allowing artists’ Copyright Act and some Lanham Act claims against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway to proceed, while dismissing DMCA claims with prejudice. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge William H. Orrick) +- Publication date: 2024-08-12 +- Source type: District court order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.407208/gov.uscourts.cand.407208.223.0_3.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the August 12, 2024 order in No. 23-cv-00201-WHO, reported as 744 F. Supp. 3d 956. Primary authority for pleading-stage holdings on the first amended complaint. The order recites alleged FAC facts and is not a fair-use merits ruling. Later amended complaints and discovery orders are not this source. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8cf404d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +--- +id: SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +title: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: BMG publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works, and removed copyright management information. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC (plaintiff filing) +- Publication date: 2026-03-17 +- Source type: District court complaint (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466061/gov.uscourts.cand.466061.1.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 5:26-cv-02334. Primary for filing date, claims, and BMG’s identification of Concord I and Concord II as related actions. Allegations are not found facts. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` +- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3a145aeb --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +--- +id: SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT +title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Second Concord/UMG/ABKCO publisher complaint against Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann alleging torrenting of books containing musical compositions and later Claude training and outputs. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (Concord II) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing) +- Publication date: 2026-01-28 +- Source type: District court complaint (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.463362/gov.uscourts.cand.463362.1.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 5:26-cv-00880. Primary for filing date, named defendants, and alleged torrenting and later-model training theories. Later amended complaints are not this source. Allegations are not found facts. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` +- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8de52d7d --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +id: SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 +title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Order relating Concord II (No. 5:26-cv-00880) to Concord I (No. 5:24-cv-03811) before Judge Eumi K. Lee. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Eumi K. Lee) +- Publication date: 2026-02-18 +- Source type: District court order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.463362/gov.uscourts.cand.463362.57.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the February 18, 2026 related-case order. Primary for the court’s finding that No. 26-cv-00880 is related to No. 24-cv-03811-EKL and reassignment to Judge Lee. Not a merits ruling. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..14522fe3 --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT +title: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Studio complaint alleging that Midjourney copied Disney and Universal character works to train an image generator and that the service outputs unauthorized reproductions and derivatives. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing) +- Publication date: 2025-06-11 +- Source type: District court complaint (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999.1.0_3.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal.). Primary source for what the Disney and Universal plaintiffs alleged at filing, not for the truth of disputed facts. The later Warner Bros. action and consolidation are not this source. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..bf7684d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026 +title: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Magistrate discovery order in the consolidated Disney/Universal/Warner Bros. action against Midjourney, limiting compelled production of the studios’ own generative-AI materials to consumer-facing uses of the asserted works. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Central District of California (Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin) +- Publication date: 2026-06-15 +- Source type: District court discovery order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999.88.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the June 15, 2026 memorandum decision in No. 2:25-cv-05275-JAK-AJR. Primary for consolidation of the Warner Bros. action, the identity of the Warner Bros. Discovery plaintiffs, and the limited grant of Midjourney’s motion to compel. It is not a fair-use or infringement merits ruling. Midjourney later sought district-judge review of the order; that motion is not this source. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f1a96dfa --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET +title: Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Ninth Circuit CourtListener docket for the interlocutory appeal from the Northern District of California Copilot / GitHub copyright-management-information order. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - open-source-software +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Doe v. GitHub, Inc., Ninth Circuit CourtListener docket + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (via CourtListener / PACER) +- Publication date: 2024-12-23 +- Source type: Public appellate docket +- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69495342/doe-et-al-v-github-inc-et-al/ +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +CourtListener docket for No. 24-7700. Reliable for the appeal’s opening from N.D. Cal. No. 4:22-cv-06823-JST, the December 23, 2024 case-opening date, and the February 11, 2026 oral-argument date as of the access date. The docket does not itself contain an appellate opinion. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..58d3c748 --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 +title: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice open-source developers’ DMCA § 1202(b) claims against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI entities, while allowing breach-of-open-source-license claims to proceed. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - open-source-software +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Jon S. Tigar) +- Publication date: 2024-06-24 +- Source type: District court order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.403220/gov.uscourts.cand.403220.253.0_1.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the June 24, 2024 order in No. 22-cv-06823-JST. Primary authority for dismissal with prejudice of the § 1202(b) claim and survival of the open-source-license contract claim. The order is a pleading decision, not a holding that Copilot training is or is not fair use. The Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal is not this source. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..feb8724e --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET +title: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984) +type: source +status: draft +summary: CourtListener docket for the Wall Street Journal and New York Post copyright action against Perplexity AI. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener / PACER) +- Publication date: 2024-10-21 +- Source type: Public docket +- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69280523/dow-jones-company-inc-v-perplexity-ai-inc/ +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP for No. 1:24-cv-07984. Reliable for the October 21, 2024 filing date and later docket events as of the access date. Not a substitute for the August 21, 2025 opinion. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..bb8880fb --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 +title: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Southern District of New York opinion denying Perplexity’s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, denying transfer, and allowing later-registered works to remain in the case. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Katherine Polk Failla) +- Publication date: 2025-08-21 +- Source type: District court opinion (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.630270/gov.uscourts.nysd.630270.65.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the August 21, 2025 Opinion & Order in No. 24 Civ. 7984 (KPF), also reported as 797 F. Supp. 3d 305. Primary for parties, claims in the second amended complaint, personal-jurisdiction and venue holdings, and denial of the § 411(a) challenge to ten later-registered works. Not a fair-use merits ruling. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b0a9c595 --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 +title: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) +type: source +status: draft +summary: High Court of England and Wales trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary copyright claim against Stable Diffusion and finding limited historic trade-mark infringement from generated watermarks. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property List (ChD) (Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE) +- Publication date: 2025-11-04 +- Source type: First-instance judgment (PDF) +- URL: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Getty-Images-v-Stability-AI.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Official judiciary.uk PDF of the approved public judgment in claim IL-2023-000007, also cited as [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch). Primary authority for the holdings summarized on the case page. It is English law, not a U.S. fair-use decision. The judgment records that Getty abandoned primary training and output copyright claims before closing submissions. A later permission-to-appeal ruling, [2025] EWHC 3343 (Ch), is not this source. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..08c9aa70 --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT +title: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Getty Images complaint alleging that Stability AI copied millions of Getty photographs to train Stable Diffusion and infringed copyrights and trademarks. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Getty Images (US), Inc. (plaintiff filing) +- Publication date: 2025-08-14 +- Source type: District court complaint (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454636/gov.uscourts.cand.454636.1.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 3:25-cv-06891 (N.D. Cal.). Primary for what Getty alleged at filing, including a list of 25,647 example registered images. Not evidence of the truth of disputed facts. The Delaware predecessor action is not this source. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..3b9ad368 --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 +title: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Northern District of California order dismissing Getty’s DMCA § 1202(a) false-CMI claim without prejudice and allowing trademark and California unfair-competition claims to proceed. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Trina L. Thompson) +- Publication date: 2026-04-23 +- Source type: District court order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454636/gov.uscourts.cand.454636.53.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the April 23, 2026 order in No. 25-cv-06891-TLT. Primary for dismissal without prejudice of Count II (§ 1202(a)) and denial of the motion as to trademark and California UCL claims. The order is not a fair-use merits ruling on the copyright-infringement count. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b5127c5b --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 +title: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice direct-infringement claims as to specified Google models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, while leaving training claims as to Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related models for later stages. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Eumi K. Lee) +- Publication date: 2025-09-11 +- Source type: District court order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.415223/gov.uscourts.cand.415223.216.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the September 11, 2025 order in Master File No. 23-cv-03440-EKL. Primary for consolidation history (Leovy and Zhang), surviving and dismissed models, and dismissal with prejudice of vicarious claims against Alphabet. Not a fair-use merits ruling. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..993b821c --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 +title: In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Southern District of New York order holding that author class plaintiffs adequately pleaded ChatGPT output-based copyright infringement, without deciding fair use. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Sidney H. Stein) +- Publication date: 2025-10-27 +- Source type: District court opinion (PDF) +- URL: https://www.loeb.com/-/media/files/pdfs/2025-pdfs/ip-entertainment-pdfs/in-re-openai-motion-to-dismiss-opinion.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Law-firm hosted copy of the October 27, 2025 Opinion & Order in 25-md-3143, captioned as relating to putative class actions including Authors Guild, No. 23-cv-8292. Primary for the pleading-stage holding that some alleged ChatGPT outputs could be found substantially similar, and for the court’s statement that it decided no fair-use question. Not a substitute for the PACER original. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..01b470af --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 +title: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation order centralizing OpenAI copyright actions in the Southern District of New York before Judge Sidney H. Stein. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation +- Publication date: 2025-03 +- Source type: JPML transfer order (PDF) +- URL: https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3143-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Official JPML PDF of the Transfer Order in MDL No. 3143. Primary for centralization in the Southern District of New York, assignment to Judge Sidney H. Stein, and Schedule A listing the twelve constituent actions. The filename indicates a March 2025 issuance; the order itself is the authority for the transfer, not for later merits rulings. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f47d72bf --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 +title: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Hamburg Regional Court first-instance judgment dismissing a photographer’s claim against LAION, holding that downloading an image to build a training dataset was covered by the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Landgericht Hamburg, 10. Zivilkammer +- Publication date: 2024-09-27 +- Source type: First-instance judgment (HTML reprint) +- URL: https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/c8o-27-09-2024-310-o-22723/ +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Commercial reprint of LG Hamburg, Urteil vom 27.09.2024, Az. 310 O 227/23. Primary for the tenor (complaint dismissed) and the court’s holding that the reproduction was covered by the scientific-research TDM exception (the reprint discusses § 60d UrhG; § 44b was left undecided). Not an official court PDF. The WIPO informal English case summary is a secondary cross-check, not this record. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..085fb39c --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +id: SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 +title: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Hanseatic Higher Regional Court report that the photographer’s appeal was dismissed and that LAION’s dataset download was covered by both § 44b and § 60d UrhG. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg, 5 U 104/24 + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (as reported in Medien Internet und Recht) +- Publication date: 2025-12-10 +- Source type: Court decision report / press reprint +- URL: https://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=3526 +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Medien Internet und Recht reprint of an OLG Hamburg decision report for Urteil vom 10.12.2025, 5 U 104/24, affirming LG Hamburg 310 O 227/23. Primary for the appellate caption, dismissal of the appeal, and the reported holdings that both § 44b and § 60d UrhG applied, including that the opt-out was not effective as machine-readable. Not a substitute for the official judgment PDF. BGH review, if any, is outside this source. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..71fad09c --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +--- +id: SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET +title: The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106) +type: source +status: draft +summary: CourtListener docket for the New York Times copyright and trademark action against Perplexity AI, filed December 5, 2025. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener / PACER) +- Publication date: 2025-12-05 +- Source type: Public docket +- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71997720/the-new-york-times-company-v-perplexity-ai-inc/ +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +CourtListener docket for No. 1:25-cv-10106. Reliable for the December 5, 2025 complaint filing against Perplexity AI, Inc. Not a substitute for the complaint PDF or any later merits order. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` +- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` diff --git a/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md b/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..12d9f324 --- /dev/null +++ b/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +--- +id: SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 +title: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Music-publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude, and that outputs reproduce those compositions. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC, Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. (plaintiff filing) +- Publication date: 2026-08-28 +- Source type: District court complaint (PDF) +- URL: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Sony-v-Anthropic-Complaint-8-28-26.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Journalist-hosted copy of the PACER complaint bearing Case 5:26-cv-09217, Document 1, filed August 28, 2026. Primary for what the publisher plaintiffs alleged at filing, including counts and the named defendants. Not a substitute for a RECAP/PACER original, and not evidence of the truth of disputed facts. No merits order is recorded in this source. + +## Used For + +- `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` +- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` diff --git a/generated/bibliography.json b/generated/bibliography.json index 07e7ab55..7700f6e1 100644 --- a/generated/bibliography.json +++ b/generated/bibliography.json @@ -223,6 +223,82 @@ "`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener / PACER)", + "publication date": "2023-01-13", + "source type": "Public docket", + "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66732129/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd/" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "CourtListener docket for the visual-artists putative class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`" + ] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge William H. Orrick)", + "publication date": "2024-08-12", + "source type": "District court order (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.407208/gov.uscourts.cand.407208.223.0_3.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Northern District of California order allowing artists\u2019 Copyright Act and some Lanham Act claims against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway to proceed, while dismissing DMCA claims with prejudice.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { @@ -602,6 +678,46 @@ "`PERSON-MATT-BLAZE`" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC (plaintiff filing)", + "publication date": "2026-03-17", + "source type": "District court complaint (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466061/gov.uscourts.cand.466061.1.0.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "BMG publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works, and removed copyright management information.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`", + "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { @@ -1648,6 +1764,81 @@ "`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing)", + "publication date": "2026-01-28", + "source type": "District court complaint (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.463362/gov.uscourts.cand.463362.1.0.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Second Concord/UMG/ABKCO publisher complaint against Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann alleging torrenting of books containing musical compositions and later Claude training and outputs.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`", + "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`" + ] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Eumi K. Lee)", + "publication date": "2026-02-18", + "source type": "District court order (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.463362/gov.uscourts.cand.463362.57.0.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Order relating Concord II (No. 5:26-cv-00880) to Concord I (No. 5:24-cv-03811) before Judge Eumi K. Lee.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { @@ -1910,6 +2101,164 @@ "`PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE`" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing)", + "publication date": "2025-06-11", + "source type": "District court complaint (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999.1.0_3.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Studio complaint alleging that Midjourney copied Disney and Universal character works to train an image generator and that the service outputs unauthorized reproductions and derivatives.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Central District of California (Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin)", + "publication date": "2026-06-15", + "source type": "District court discovery order (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999.88.0.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Magistrate discovery order in the consolidated Disney/Universal/Warner Bros. action against Midjourney, limiting compelled production of the studios\u2019 own generative-AI materials to consumer-facing uses of the asserted works.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (via CourtListener / PACER)", + "publication date": "2024-12-23", + "source type": "Public appellate docket", + "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69495342/doe-et-al-v-github-inc-et-al/" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Ninth Circuit CourtListener docket for the interlocutory appeal from the Northern District of California Copilot / GitHub copyright-management-information order.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "open-source-software" + ], + "title": "Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Jon S. Tigar)", + "publication date": "2024-06-24", + "source type": "District court order (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.403220/gov.uscourts.cand.403220.253.0_1.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice open-source developers\u2019 DMCA \u00a7 1202(b) claims against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI entities, while allowing breach-of-open-source-license claims to proceed.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "open-source-software" + ], + "title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { @@ -2062,6 +2411,82 @@ "`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener / PACER)", + "publication date": "2024-10-21", + "source type": "Public docket", + "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69280523/dow-jones-company-inc-v-perplexity-ai-inc/" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "CourtListener docket for the Wall Street Journal and New York Post copyright action against Perplexity AI.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`" + ] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Katherine Polk Failla)", + "publication date": "2025-08-21", + "source type": "District court opinion (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.630270/gov.uscourts.nysd.630270.65.0.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Southern District of New York opinion denying Perplexity\u2019s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, denying transfer, and allowing later-registered works to remain in the case.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { @@ -2868,89 +3293,205 @@ "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights" ], - "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)", + "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-08-22", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Judge Anne C. Conway)", + "publication date": "2025-05-20", + "source type": "District court order (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581.115.0.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Middle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "first-amendment", + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights" + ], + "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", + "`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`" + ] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-08-22", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, 42. Zivilkammer", + "publication date": "2025-11-11", + "source type": "Official first-instance judgment (HTML report)", + "url": "https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-GRURRS-B-2025-N-30204" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "LG M\u00fcnchen I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 \u2013 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`", + "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-08-22", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I (Pressesprecherin Cornelia Kallert)", + "publication date": "2025-11-11", + "source type": "Official court press release", + "url": "https://www.bayern.verfassungsgerichtshof.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2025/11.php" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)", "type": "source", "used_for": [ - "`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`", - "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + "`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`", + "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`" ] }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { - "access date": "2026-08-22", + "access date": "2026-09-02", "archive url": "None recorded", - "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Judge Anne C. Conway)", - "publication date": "2025-05-20", - "source type": "District court order (PDF)", - "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581/gov.uscourts.flmd.433581.115.0.pdf" + "author or issuing body": "High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property List (ChD) (Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE)", + "publication date": "2025-11-04", + "source type": "First-instance judgment (PDF)", + "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Getty-Images-v-Stability-AI.pdf" }, "charge_date": null, "decision_date": null, "enactment_date": null, "event_date": null, - "id": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", + "id": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", "indictment_date": null, - "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "legislative_override_date": null, "offense_date": null, - "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md", + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md", "relationships": [], - "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", - "summary": "Middle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.", + "summary": "High Court of England and Wales trial judgment dismissing Getty\u2019s secondary copyright claim against Stable Diffusion and finding limited historic trade-mark infringement from generated watermarks.", "tags": [ "source", "case", - "first-amendment", - "artificial-intelligence", - "digital-rights" + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" ], - "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)", + "title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)", "type": "source", "used_for": [ - "`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`", - "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", - "`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`" + "`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" ] }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { - "access date": "2026-08-22", + "access date": "2026-09-02", "archive url": "None recorded", - "author or issuing body": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, 42. Zivilkammer", - "publication date": "2025-11-11", - "source type": "Official first-instance judgment (HTML report)", - "url": "https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-GRURRS-B-2025-N-30204" + "author or issuing body": "Getty Images (US), Inc. (plaintiff filing)", + "publication date": "2025-08-14", + "source type": "District court complaint (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454636/gov.uscourts.cand.454636.1.0.pdf" }, "charge_date": null, "decision_date": null, "enactment_date": null, "event_date": null, - "id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", + "id": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", "indictment_date": null, - "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "legislative_override_date": null, "offense_date": null, - "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md", + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], - "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", - "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.", + "summary": "Getty Images complaint alleging that Stability AI copied millions of Getty photographs to train Stable Diffusion and infringed copyrights and trademarks.", "tags": [ "source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence" ], - "title": "LG M\u00fcnchen I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 \u2013 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)", + "title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)", "type": "source", "used_for": [ - "`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`", - "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", + "`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`", "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" ] @@ -2958,39 +3499,40 @@ { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { - "access date": "2026-08-22", + "access date": "2026-09-02", "archive url": "None recorded", - "author or issuing body": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I (Pressesprecherin Cornelia Kallert)", - "publication date": "2025-11-11", - "source type": "Official court press release", - "url": "https://www.bayern.verfassungsgerichtshof.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2025/11.php" + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Trina L. Thompson)", + "publication date": "2026-04-23", + "source type": "District court order (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454636/gov.uscourts.cand.454636.53.0.pdf" }, "charge_date": null, "decision_date": null, "enactment_date": null, "event_date": null, - "id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", + "id": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", "indictment_date": null, - "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "legislative_override_date": null, "offense_date": null, - "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md", + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md", "relationships": [], - "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", - "summary": "Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.", + "summary": "Northern District of California order dismissing Getty\u2019s DMCA \u00a7 1202(a) false-CMI claim without prejudice and allowing trademark and California unfair-competition claims to proceed.", "tags": [ "source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence" ], - "title": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)", + "title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026)", "type": "source", "used_for": [ - "`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`", - "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`" + "`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" ] }, { @@ -3031,6 +3573,45 @@ "`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Eumi K. Lee)", + "publication date": "2025-09-11", + "source type": "District court order (PDF)", + "url": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.415223/gov.uscourts.cand.415223.216.0.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice direct-infringement claims as to specified Google models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, while leaving training claims as to Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related models for later stages.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { @@ -3513,6 +4094,45 @@ "`ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE`" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Sidney H. Stein)", + "publication date": "2025-10-27", + "source type": "District court opinion (PDF)", + "url": "https://www.loeb.com/-/media/files/pdfs/2025-pdfs/ip-entertainment-pdfs/in-re-openai-motion-to-dismiss-opinion.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Southern District of New York order holding that author class plaintiffs adequately pleaded ChatGPT output-based copyright infringement, without deciding fair use.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { @@ -3663,6 +4283,45 @@ "`PERSON-CINDY-COHN`" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation", + "publication date": "2025-03", + "source type": "JPML transfer order (PDF)", + "url": "https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3143-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation order centralizing OpenAI copyright actions in the Southern District of New York before Judge Sidney H. Stein.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { @@ -3931,6 +4590,84 @@ "`PERSON-RO-KHANNA`" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "Landgericht Hamburg, 10. Zivilkammer", + "publication date": "2024-09-27", + "source type": "First-instance judgment (HTML reprint)", + "url": "https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/c8o-27-09-2024-310-o-22723/" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Hamburg Regional Court first-instance judgment dismissing a photographer\u2019s claim against LAION, holding that downloading an image to build a training dataset was covered by the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (as reported in Medien Internet und Recht)", + "publication date": "2025-12-10", + "source type": "Court decision report / press reprint", + "url": "https://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=3526" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Hanseatic Higher Regional Court report that the photographer\u2019s appeal was dismissed and that LAION\u2019s dataset download was covered by both \u00a7 44b and \u00a7 60d UrhG.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { @@ -4647,6 +5384,44 @@ "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener / PACER)", + "publication date": "2025-12-05", + "source type": "Public docket", + "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71997720/the-new-york-times-company-v-perplexity-ai-inc/" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "CourtListener docket for the New York Times copyright and trademark action against Perplexity AI, filed December 5, 2025.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`", + "`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { @@ -6380,6 +7155,46 @@ "X3DH key agreement" ] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": { + "access date": "2026-09-02", + "archive url": "None recorded", + "author or issuing body": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC, Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. (plaintiff filing)", + "publication date": "2026-08-28", + "source type": "District court complaint (PDF)", + "url": "https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Sony-v-Anthropic-Complaint-8-28-26.pdf" + }, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md", + "relationships": [], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md", + "sources": [], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Music-publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude, and that outputs reproduce those compositions.", + "tags": [ + "source", + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence" + ], + "title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)", + "type": "source", + "used_for": [ + "`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`", + "`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", + "`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`" + ] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": { diff --git a/generated/citations.json b/generated/citations.json index dbf39bf6..81a70c1a 100644 --- a/generated/citations.json +++ b/generated/citations.json @@ -108,6 +108,94 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET", + "source_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "usage": "page_source" + } + ] + }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "source_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026", "source_title": "AP News \u2014 Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism", @@ -579,6 +667,93 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", + "source_title": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", + "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING", "source_title": "Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising", @@ -1526,6 +1701,56 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "source_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + } + ] + }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", + "source_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", + "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", "source_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)", @@ -1753,6 +1978,178 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "source_title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "record_title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "record_title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.", + "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "record_title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.", + "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "record_title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.", + "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", + "source_title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "record_title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + } + ] + }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", + "source_title": "Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "record_title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + } + ] + }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "source_title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "record_title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "record_title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.", + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "record_title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.", + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "record_title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.", + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "record_title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.", + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001", "source_title": "DOJ \u2014 Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001)", @@ -1883,6 +2280,78 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", + "source_title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "record_title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.", + "usage": "page_source" + } + ] + }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "source_title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "record_title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "record_title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.", + "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "record_title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.", + "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "record_title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.", + "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION", "source_title": "Arne Babenhauserheide \u2014 The Path Towards Decentralized Moderation", @@ -2607,6 +3076,120 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "source_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", + "source_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + } + ] + }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", + "source_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT", "source_title": "GNUnet About Page", @@ -2631,6 +3214,88 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "source_title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "record_title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "record_title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation", + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "record_title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation", + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "record_title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation", + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "record_title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation", + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA", "source_title": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)", @@ -3008,6 +3673,59 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "source_title": "In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "record_title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "record_title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation", + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "record_title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation", + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025", "source_title": "IRS-CI \u2014 Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025)", @@ -3168,6 +3886,56 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "source_title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "record_title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "record_title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation", + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "record_title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation", + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)", + "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO", "source_title": "Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page", @@ -3385,6 +4153,109 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "source_title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "record_title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "record_title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.", + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "record_title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.", + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "record_title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.", + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", + "source_title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", + "record_title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", + "record_title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)", + "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "record_title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "record_title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.", + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT", "source_title": "Knight First Amendment Institute About Page", @@ -3950,6 +4821,30 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", + "source_title": "The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "record_title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "record_title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)", + "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076", "source_title": "OFAC FAQ 1076 \u2014 Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation", @@ -5070,6 +5965,101 @@ } ] }, + { + "source_id": "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "source_title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)", + "usages": [ + { + "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", + "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "predicate": "cites", + "record_id": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "record_title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "record_title": "AI Litigation Landscape", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "usage": "relationship_source" + }, + { + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI", + "usage": "page_source" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "record_id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "record_title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI", + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "usage": "relationship_source" + } + ] + }, { "source_id": "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT", "source_title": "Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)", diff --git a/generated/glossary.json b/generated/glossary.json index bebe20a2..b75b3a67 100644 --- a/generated/glossary.json +++ b/generated/glossary.json @@ -1,6 +1,87 @@ { "description": "Generated glossary-style index of non-source knowledge records.", "records": [ + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": {}, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": "2024-08-12", + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md", + "relationships": [ + { + "object": "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + } + ], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET", + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice.", + "tags": [ + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights" + ], + "title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "type": "case", + "used_for": [] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": {}, @@ -140,6 +221,61 @@ "type": "case", "used_for": [] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": {}, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md", + "relationships": [ + { + "object": "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC" + } + ], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information.", + "tags": [ + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights" + ], + "title": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "type": "case", + "used_for": [] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": {}, @@ -478,7 +614,7 @@ "event_date": null, "id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "indictment_date": null, - "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "legislative_override_date": null, "offense_date": null, "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md", @@ -491,6 +627,14 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" }, + { + "object": "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, { "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", @@ -514,16 +658,36 @@ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025" ], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" } ], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "sources": [ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII" ], "status": "draft", - "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.", + "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions.", "tags": [ "case", "copyright", @@ -534,6 +698,184 @@ "type": "case", "used_for": [] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": {}, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md", + "relationships": [ + { + "object": "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY" + } + ], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters.", + "tags": [ + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights" + ], + "title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.", + "type": "case", + "used_for": [] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": {}, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": "2024-06-24", + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md", + "relationships": [ + { + "object": "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB" + } + ], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Open-source developers\u2019 action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026.", + "tags": [ + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights", + "open-source-software" + ], + "title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.", + "type": "case", + "used_for": [] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": {}, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": "2025-08-21", + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md", + "relationships": [ + { + "object": "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY" + } + ], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", + "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity\u2019s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district.", + "tags": [ + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights" + ], + "title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.", + "type": "case", + "used_for": [] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": {}, @@ -616,7 +958,7 @@ "event_date": null, "id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "indictment_date": null, - "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "legislative_override_date": null, "offense_date": null, "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md", @@ -652,12 +994,21 @@ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025" ], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI" } ], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md", "sources": [ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", - "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025" + "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025" ], "status": "draft", "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.", @@ -671,6 +1022,79 @@ "type": "case", "used_for": [] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": {}, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": "2025-11-04", + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md", + "relationships": [ + { + "object": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY" + } + ], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty\u2019s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage.", + "tags": [ + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights" + ], + "title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "type": "case", + "used_for": [] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": {}, @@ -697,24 +1121,151 @@ "object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": [ - "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA" + "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE" + } + ], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision that Google's copying of approximately 11,500 lines of Java API declaring code for use in Android constituted fair use under copyright law.", + "tags": [ + "copyright", + "speech-and-code", + "digital-rights", + "open-source-software" + ], + "title": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.", + "type": "case", + "used_for": [] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": {}, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": "2025-09-11", + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md", + "relationships": [ + { + "object": "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI" + } + ], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims.", + "tags": [ + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights" + ], + "title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation", + "type": "case", + "used_for": [] + }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": {}, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": "2025-10-27", + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md", + "relationships": [ + { + "object": "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI" + }, + { + "object": "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025" ], - "subject": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE" + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI" } ], - "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md", "sources": [ - "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA" + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025" ], "status": "draft", - "summary": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision that Google's copying of approximately 11,500 lines of Java API declaring code for use in Android constituted fair use under copyright law.", + "summary": "Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI\u2019s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use.", "tags": [ + "case", "copyright", - "speech-and-code", - "digital-rights", - "open-source-software" + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights" ], - "title": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.", + "title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation", "type": "case", "used_for": [] }, @@ -847,6 +1398,70 @@ "type": "case", "used_for": [] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": {}, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": "2024-09-27", + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md", + "relationships": [ + { + "object": "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION" + } + ], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "German photographer\u2019s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception.", + "tags": [ + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights" + ], + "title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.", + "type": "case", + "used_for": [] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": {}, @@ -996,7 +1611,7 @@ "event_date": null, "id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "indictment_date": null, - "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "legislative_override_date": null, "offense_date": null, "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md", @@ -1024,13 +1639,31 @@ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025" ], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143" + ], + "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET" + ], + "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI" } ], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md", "sources": [ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", - "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026" + "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET" ], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.", @@ -1253,6 +1886,69 @@ "type": "case", "used_for": [] }, + { + "arrest_date": null, + "bibliographic_metadata": {}, + "charge_date": null, + "decision_date": null, + "enactment_date": null, + "event_date": null, + "id": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "indictment_date": null, + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", + "legislative_override_date": null, + "offense_date": null, + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md", + "relationships": [ + { + "object": "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC" + } + ], + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions.", + "tags": [ + "case", + "copyright", + "artificial-intelligence", + "digital-rights" + ], + "title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "type": "case", + "used_for": [] + }, { "arrest_date": null, "bibliographic_metadata": {}, @@ -7001,7 +7697,7 @@ "event_date": null, "id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "indictment_date": null, - "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "legislative_override_date": null, "offense_date": null, "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md", @@ -7141,6 +7837,86 @@ "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO" ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" } ], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md", @@ -7158,11 +7934,28 @@ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO" ], "status": "draft", - "summary": "U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.", + "summary": "U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation.", "tags": [ "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", @@ -7182,7 +7975,7 @@ "event_date": null, "id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "indictment_date": null, - "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "legislative_override_date": null, "offense_date": null, "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md", @@ -7315,6 +8108,86 @@ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025" ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" } ], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md", @@ -7332,10 +8205,26 @@ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", - "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025" - ], - "status": "draft", - "summary": "Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.", + "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.", "tags": [ "artificial-intelligence", "copyright", @@ -7357,7 +8246,7 @@ "event_date": null, "id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "indictment_date": null, - "last_verified": "2026-08-22", + "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "legislative_override_date": null, "offense_date": null, "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md", @@ -7417,6 +8306,22 @@ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER" ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT" } ], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md", @@ -7430,10 +8335,14 @@ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII" ], "status": "draft", - "summary": "Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.", + "summary": "Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.", "tags": [ "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", diff --git a/generated/handbook.json b/generated/handbook.json index 9d24beae..d8ca6ca3 100644 --- a/generated/handbook.json +++ b/generated/handbook.json @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ { "description": "Generated linear handbook prototype from knowledge metadata.", - "record_count": 143, + "record_count": 153, "records": [ { "id": "PERSON-AARON-WILLIAMSON", @@ -228,6 +228,20 @@ "title": "Pavel Chikov", "type": "attorney" }, + { + "id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET", + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice.", + "title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "type": "case" + }, { "id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md", @@ -256,6 +270,18 @@ "title": "Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice", "type": "case" }, + { + "id": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information.", + "title": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "type": "case" + }, { "id": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md", @@ -334,13 +360,57 @@ "sources": [ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII" ], "status": "draft", - "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.", + "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions.", "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", "type": "case" }, + { + "id": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters.", + "title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.", + "type": "case" + }, + { + "id": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Open-source developers\u2019 action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026.", + "title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.", + "type": "case" + }, + { + "id": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", + "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity\u2019s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district.", + "title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.", + "type": "case" + }, { "id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md", @@ -360,13 +430,28 @@ "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md", "sources": [ "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", - "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025" + "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025" ], "status": "draft", "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.", "title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)", "type": "case" }, + { + "id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty\u2019s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage.", + "title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "type": "case" + }, { "id": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md", @@ -379,6 +464,31 @@ "title": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.", "type": "case" }, + { + "id": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims.", + "title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation", + "type": "case" + }, + { + "id": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI\u2019s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use.", + "title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation", + "type": "case" + }, { "id": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md", @@ -405,6 +515,19 @@ "title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.", "type": "case" }, + { + "id": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "German photographer\u2019s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception.", + "title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.", + "type": "case" + }, { "id": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md", @@ -440,7 +563,9 @@ "sources": [ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", - "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026" + "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET" ], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.", @@ -488,6 +613,18 @@ "title": "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union", "type": "case" }, + { + "id": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md", + "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions.", + "title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", + "type": "case" + }, { "id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md", @@ -1661,11 +1798,28 @@ "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO" ], "status": "draft", - "summary": "U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.", + "summary": "U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation.", "title": "Copyright and Generative AI", "type": "topic" }, @@ -1687,10 +1841,26 @@ "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", - "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025" - ], - "status": "draft", - "summary": "Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.", + "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "status": "draft", + "summary": "Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.", "title": "AI Litigation Landscape", "type": "topic" }, @@ -1708,10 +1878,14 @@ "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII" ], "status": "draft", - "summary": "Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.", + "summary": "Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.", "title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI", "type": "topic" }, diff --git a/generated/relationships.json b/generated/relationships.json index 89ebf230..7bb62526 100644 --- a/generated/relationships.json +++ b/generated/relationships.json @@ -1,6 +1,66 @@ { "description": "Generated relationship graph edge index.", "edges": [ + { + "declared_in": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "notes": null, @@ -91,6 +151,36 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "notes": null, + "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS", "notes": null, @@ -293,6 +383,16 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "notes": null, @@ -303,6 +403,16 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "notes": null, @@ -313,6 +423,16 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "notes": null, @@ -333,6 +453,106 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "notes": null, + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "notes": null, + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES", "notes": null, @@ -403,6 +623,16 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "notes": null, @@ -423,6 +653,56 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "notes": null, + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "notes": null, @@ -443,6 +723,86 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "notes": null, + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "notes": null, + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY", "notes": null, @@ -523,6 +883,46 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025" + ], + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "notes": null, + "object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024" + ], + "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL", "notes": null, @@ -623,6 +1023,26 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET" + ], + "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143" + ], + "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "notes": null, @@ -783,6 +1203,46 @@ ], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU" }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "notes": null, + "object": "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", + "predicate": "cites", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, + { + "declared_in": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "notes": null, + "object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC" + }, { "declared_in": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "notes": null, @@ -3698,6 +4158,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "notes": null, @@ -3708,6 +4178,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "notes": null, @@ -3718,6 +4198,36 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "notes": null, @@ -3728,6 +4238,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "notes": null, @@ -3738,6 +4258,26 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "notes": null, @@ -3748,6 +4288,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "notes": null, @@ -3758,6 +4308,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "notes": null, @@ -3858,6 +4418,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "notes": null, @@ -3868,6 +4438,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "notes": null, @@ -3878,6 +4458,36 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "notes": null, @@ -3898,6 +4508,36 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "notes": null, @@ -3908,6 +4548,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "notes": null, @@ -3918,6 +4568,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "notes": null, @@ -4018,6 +4678,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "notes": null, @@ -4038,6 +4708,16 @@ ], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT" }, + { + "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", + "notes": null, + "object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", + "predicate": "related_to", + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT" + }, { "declared_in": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "notes": null, diff --git a/generated/retrieval.json b/generated/retrieval.json index 6b90ea85..ff5989d7 100644 --- a/generated/retrieval.json +++ b/generated/retrieval.json @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ { "description": "Generated AI retrieval dataset manifest.", "jsonl_path": "generated/retrieval.jsonl", - "record_count": 375, + "record_count": 406, "schema_version": 1 } diff --git a/generated/retrieval.jsonl b/generated/retrieval.jsonl index 28f2c77e..5f00654c 100644 --- a/generated/retrieval.jsonl +++ b/generated/retrieval.jsonl @@ -1,22 +1,32 @@ +{"id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024"], "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024"], "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY"}, {"object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024"], "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY"}, {"object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024"], "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY"}, {"object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024"], "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY"}, {"object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md", "sources": ["SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET", "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.\nPending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC\nBartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was transformative fair use but that building a permanent library from pirated copies was not, and the court later approved a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ"}, {"object": "SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF"], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ"}, {"object": "SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF-25", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF-25"], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA", "SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF", "SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF-25"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), held that software source code is protected speech under the First Amendment and that government regulations preventing its publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "cryptography", "speech-and-code", "export-control", "digital-rights"], "text": "Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice\nBernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), held that software source code is protected speech under the First Amendment and that government regulations preventing its publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint.\nfirst-amendment cryptography speech-and-code export-control digital-rights", "title": "Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "sources": ["SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC\nPending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII"], "subject": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS"}, {"object": "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII"], "subject": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md", "sources": ["SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-LII", "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011), held that video games qualify for First Amendment protection and struck down a California law restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "digital-rights"], "text": "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.\nBrown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011), held that video games qualify for First Amendment protection and struck down a California law restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.\nfirst-amendment digital-rights", "title": "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US", "last_verified": "2026-07-30", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CARPENTER-V-US.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-CARPENTER-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US"}, {"object": "SRC-CARPENTER-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CARPENTER-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US"}, {"object": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII", "SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CARPENTER-V-US.md", "sources": ["SRC-CARPENTER-LII", "SRC-CARPENTER-GOVINFO", "SRC-CHATRIE-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), held that the Government's acquisition of historical cell-site location records was a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant supported by probable cause in ordinary circumstances.", "tags": ["fourth-amendment", "privacy", "digital-rights", "surveillance"], "text": "Carpenter v. United States\nCarpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018), held that the Government's acquisition of historical cell-site location records was a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant supported by probable cause in ordinary circumstances.\nfourth-amendment privacy digital-rights surveillance", "title": "Carpenter v. United States", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}, {"object": "SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}, {"object": "SRC-CCIA-SB2420-LITIGATION-PAGE", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-SB2420-LITIGATION-PAGE"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}, {"object": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}, {"object": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-SB2420-LITIGATION-PAGE"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"], "subject": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER", "SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER", "SRC-CCIA-SB2420-LITIGATION-PAGE", "SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026", "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Federal challenge to Texas SB 2420 in which the Western District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction (Dec. 23, 2025), the Fifth Circuit stayed that injunction pending appeal (June 4, 2026), and the Supreme Court denied an emergency application to vacate the stay (July 2026), leaving the App Store Accountability Act enforceable while the appeal continues.", "tags": ["age-verification", "first-amendment", "digital-rights", "public-policy", "internet-governance"], "text": "CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)\nFederal challenge to Texas SB 2420 in which the Western District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction (Dec. 23, 2025), the Fifth Circuit stayed that injunction pending appeal (June 4, 2026), and the Supreme Court denied an emergency application to vacate the stay (July 2026), leaving the App Store Accountability Act enforceable while the appeal continues.\nage-verification first-amendment digital-rights public-policy internet-governance", "title": "CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US", "last_verified": "2026-07-30", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CHATRIE-V-US.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-CHATRIE-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US"}, {"object": "SRC-CHATRIE-SCOTUS-PDF", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-SCOTUS-PDF"], "subject": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FOURTH-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US"}, {"object": "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII", "SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "subject": "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CHATRIE-V-US.md", "sources": ["SRC-CHATRIE-LII", "SRC-CHATRIE-SCOTUS-PDF", "SRC-HILL-MARLOW-REVERSE-WARRANTS-2026", "SRC-CARPENTER-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (June 29, 2026), held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they acquire an individual\u2019s Google Location History data through a geofence warrant process, vacated the Fourth Circuit, and remanded warrant particularity/probable-cause questions.", "tags": ["fourth-amendment", "privacy", "digital-rights", "surveillance", "case-studies"], "text": "Chatrie v. United States\nChatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (June 29, 2026), held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they acquire an individual\u2019s Google Location History data through a geofence warrant process, vacated the Fourth Circuit, and remanded warrant particularity/probable-cause questions.\nfourth-amendment privacy digital-rights surveillance case-studies", "title": "Chatrie v. United States", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023"], "subject": "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN"}, {"object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023"], "subject": "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN"}, {"object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023"], "subject": "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md", "sources": ["SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023", "SRC-TREASURY-TC-AUG-2022"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023), granted summary judgment to Treasury on OFAC\u2019s Tornado Cash designation, treating Tornado Cash as an association with an interest in the designated smart-contract tool.", "tags": ["case", "sanctions", "tornado-cash", "case-studies", "open-source-software"], "text": "Coin Center v. Yellen\nCoin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023), granted summary judgment to Treasury on OFAC\u2019s Tornado Cash designation, treating Tornado Cash as an association with an interest in the designated smart-contract tool.\ncase sanctions tornado-cash case-studies open-source-software", "title": "Coin Center v. Yellen", "type": "case"} -{"id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC\nPending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC\nPending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY"}, {"object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md", "sources": ["SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.\nPending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024"], "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024"], "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB"}, {"object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024"], "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB"}, {"object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024"], "subject": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md", "sources": ["SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Open-source developers\u2019 action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights", "open-source-software"], "text": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.\nOpen-source developers\u2019 action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights open-source-software", "title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY"}, {"object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md", "sources": ["SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity\u2019s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.\nPending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity\u2019s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"}, {"object": "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"}, {"object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT", "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.", "tags": ["case", "first-amendment", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights", "intermediary-liability"], "text": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.\nGarcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pending wrongful-death and product-liability action over a Character.AI chatbot; the court allowed most claims to proceed in May 2025 and declined to treat chatbot output as protected speech at the pleading stage.\ncase first-amendment artificial-intelligence digital-rights intermediary-liability", "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.", "type": "case"} -{"id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)\nFirst-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)\nFirst-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "GEMA v. OpenAI (LG M\u00fcnchen I)", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY"}, {"object": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026"], "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY"}, {"object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025"], "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY"}, {"object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026"], "subject": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md", "sources": ["SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026"], "status": "draft", "summary": "English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty\u2019s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.\nEnglish High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty\u2019s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision that Google's copying of approximately 11,500 lines of Java API declaring code for use in Android constituted fair use under copyright law.", "tags": ["copyright", "speech-and-code", "digital-rights", "open-source-software"], "text": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.\nGoogle LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision that Google's copying of approximately 11,500 lines of Java API declaring code for use in Android constituted fair use under copyright law.\ncopyright speech-and-code digital-rights open-source-software", "title": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI"}, {"object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI"}, {"object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation\nPending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143"], "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI"}, {"object": "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI"}, {"object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143"], "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md", "sources": ["SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI\u2019s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation\nMultidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI\u2019s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-JUNGER-CMU", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU"], "subject": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY"}, {"object": "SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO"], "subject": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU"], "subject": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU"], "subject": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU", "SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is protected by the First Amendment because of its expressiveness in conveying ideas, reversing the district court's contrary finding on encryption source code and export restrictions.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "cryptography", "speech-and-code", "export-control", "digital-rights"], "text": "Junger v. Daley\nJunger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is protected by the First Amendment because of its expressiveness in conveying ideas, reversing the district court's contrary finding on encryption source code and export restrictions.\nfirst-amendment cryptography speech-and-code export-control digital-rights", "title": "Junger v. Daley", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-KADREY-V-META", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"}, {"object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "CASE-KADREY-V-META"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors\u2019 books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.\nKadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors\u2019 books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024"], "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION"}, {"object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024"], "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025"], "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024"], "subject": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md", "sources": ["SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "German photographer\u2019s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.\nGerman photographer\u2019s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}, {"object": "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}, {"object": "STAT-DMCA-512", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FAIR-USE-VIDEO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9"], "subject": "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md", "sources": ["SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-EFF-BLOGGERS-IP"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), held that copyright holders must consider fair use in good faith before sending DMCA takedown notifications under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(c).", "tags": ["copyright", "digital-rights", "safe-harbor"], "text": "Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.\nLenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), held that copyright holders must consider fair use in good faith before sending DMCA takedown notifications under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 512(c).\ncopyright digital-rights safe-harbor", "title": "Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-PERTSEV-ECLI-2024", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-PERTSEV-ECLI-2024"], "subject": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV"}, {"object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-PERTSEV-ECLI-2024"], "subject": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV"}, {"object": "CASE-US-V-STORM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023"], "subject": "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md", "sources": ["SRC-PERTSEV-ECLI-2024", "SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024", "SRC-TREASURY-SEMENOV-2023"], "status": "draft", "summary": "East Brabant District Court judgment ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 (May 14, 2024) convicted a Tornado Cash developer of money laundering and imposed a 64-month prison sentence; English judiciary news identifies the defendant as Alexey Pertsev.", "tags": ["case", "computer-crime", "privacy", "tornado-cash", "case-studies", "developer-rights", "open-source-risk"], "text": "Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)\nEast Brabant District Court judgment ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 (May 14, 2024) convicted a Tornado Cash developer of money laundering and imposed a 64-month prison sentence; English judiciary news identifies the defendant as Alexey Pertsev.\ncase computer-crime privacy tornado-cash case-studies developer-rights open-source-risk", "title": "Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)", "type": "case"} -{"id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)\nPending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}, {"object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET"], "subject": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)\nPending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII"], "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"}, {"object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"}, {"object": "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII"], "subject": "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md", "sources": ["SRC-PACKINGHAM-LII", "SRC-PACKINGHAM-JUSTIA", "SRC-PACKINGHAM-GOVINFO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), held unanimously that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media websites violated the First Amendment, establishing that the internet and social media are protected spaces for the exercise of free speech rights.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "internet-governance", "digital-rights"], "text": "Packingham v. North Carolina\nPackingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), held unanimously that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing social media websites violated the First Amendment, establishing that the internet and social media are protected spaces for the exercise of free speech rights.\nfirst-amendment internet-governance digital-rights", "title": "Packingham v. North Carolina", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL"}, {"object": "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL"}, {"object": "STAT-DMCA-512", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL"}, {"object": "TOPIC-SAFE-HARBOR", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL"}, {"object": "TOPIC-INTERMEDIARY-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL.md", "sources": ["SRC-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL-JUSTIA", "SRC-USC-17-512-GOVINFO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), is an appellate decision addressing DMCA \u00a7 512 safe harbor requirements for online service providers.", "tags": ["copyright", "safe-harbor", "intermediary-liability", "digital-rights"], "text": "Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC\nPerfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), is an appellate decision addressing DMCA \u00a7 512 safe harbor requirements for online service providers.\ncopyright safe-harbor intermediary-liability digital-rights", "title": "Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-GOVINFO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-GOVINFO"], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"}, {"object": "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC"], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"}, {"object": "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA"], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC"], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC"], "subject": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-GOVINFO", "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC", "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain Communications Decency Act provisions restricting indecent and patently offensive Internet speech violated the First Amendment.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "internet-governance", "digital-rights", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union\nReno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain Communications Decency Act provisions restricting indecent and patently offensive Internet speech violated the First Amendment.\nfirst-amendment internet-governance digital-rights speech-and-code", "title": "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union", "type": "case"} +{"id": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026"], "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026"], "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026"], "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC"}, {"object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026"], "subject": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md", "sources": ["SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC\nPending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"}, {"object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"}, {"object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"], "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET", "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab\nPending Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action asking whether AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are protected by U.S. copyright.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"}, {"object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"}, {"object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023", "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Thaler v. Perlmutter\nThaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025), held that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires a copyrighted work to be authored in the first instance by a human being, affirming refusal to register an image listed as authored solely by a generative-AI system.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Thaler v. Perlmutter", "type": "case"} {"id": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"}, {"object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.", "tags": ["case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.\nThomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) rejected a fair-use defense for using Westlaw headnotes to train a competing non-generative legal-research AI tool.\ncase copyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights", "title": "Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.", "type": "case"} @@ -113,6 +123,8 @@ {"id": "SRC-ACLU-HISTORY", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-ACLU-HISTORY.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-ACLU-HISTORY.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official ACLU history page describing the organization's founding context and civil liberties mission.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "civil-liberties", "digital-rights", "outreach"], "text": "American Civil Liberties Union History Page\nOfficial ACLU history page describing the organization's founding context and civil liberties mission.\nsource organization civil-liberties digital-rights outreach\nAmerican Civil Liberties Union Civil liberties organizations Outreach verification", "title": "American Civil Liberties Union History Page", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official Alabama enrolled HB 161 text requiring app-store age verification and parental consent frameworks, effective January 1, 2027, with Attorney General rulemaking.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "age-verification", "public-policy"], "text": "Alabama HB 161 Enrolled \u2014 App Store Accountability Act\nOfficial Alabama enrolled HB 161 text requiring app-store age verification and parental consent frameworks, effective January 1, 2027, with Attorney General rulemaking.\nsource statute age-verification public-policy\n`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`", "title": "Alabama HB 161 Enrolled \u2014 App Store Accountability Act", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Law-firm client alert describing CCIA\u2019s February 2026 First Amendment challenge to Utah\u2019s App Store Accountability Act and voluntary dismissal on April 21, 2026 after HB 498 delayed obligations to May 6, 2027 and removed AG enforcement.", "tags": ["source", "case", "age-verification", "first-amendment"], "text": "Alston & Bird \u2014 Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026)\nLaw-firm client alert describing CCIA\u2019s February 2026 First Amendment challenge to Utah\u2019s App Store Accountability Act and voluntary dismissal on April 21, 2026 after HB 498 delayed obligations to May 6, 2027 and removed AG enforcement.\nsource case age-verification first-amendment\n`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`", "title": "Alston & Bird \u2014 Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "CourtListener docket for the visual-artists putative class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201)\nCourtListener docket for the visual-artists putative class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`", "title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California order allowing artists\u2019 Copyright Act and some Lanham Act claims against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway to proceed, while dismissing DMCA claims with prejudice.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)\nNorthern District of California order allowing artists\u2019 Copyright Act and some Lanham Act claims against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway to proceed, while dismissing DMCA claims with prejudice.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026", "last_verified": "2026-07-29", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Associated Press report that Russia's FSB charged Pavel Durov with aiding terrorism, alleged Telegram failed to remove channels used for sabotage and terrorism, and placed him on international wanted lists.", "tags": ["source", "intermediary-liability", "digital-rights", "secure-messaging", "historical-event"], "text": "AP News \u2014 Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism\nAssociated Press report that Russia's FSB charged Pavel Durov with aiding terrorism, alleged Telegram failed to remove channels used for sabotage and terrorism, and placed him on international wanted lists.\nsource intermediary-liability digital-rights secure-messaging historical-event\n`EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026` `PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV` `ORG-TELEGRAM`", "title": "AP News \u2014 Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California summary-judgment order holding that training Anthropic\u2019s Claude models on purchased books was fair use, while pirated library copies were not excused as fair use.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)\nNorthern District of California summary-judgment order holding that training Anthropic\u2019s Claude models on purchased books was fair use, while pirated library copies were not excused as fair use.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California order granting final approval of a $1.5 billion class settlement covering Anthropic\u2019s past acquisition and copying of listed pirated books.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)\nNorthern District of California order granting final approval of a $1.5 billion class settlement covering Anthropic\u2019s past acquisition and copying of listed pirated books.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)", "type": "source"} @@ -123,6 +135,7 @@ {"id": "SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Justia reproduction of the Ninth Circuit opinion in Bernstein v. DOJ.", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "cryptography", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999) (Justia)\nJustia reproduction of the Ninth Circuit opinion in Bernstein v. DOJ.\nsource case first-amendment cryptography speech-and-code\n`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`", "title": "Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999) (Justia)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-BHANDARI-ACLU", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-BHANDARI-ACLU.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BHANDARI-ACLU.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official ACLU biography for Esha Bhandari, Director of the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "digital-rights", "privacy"], "text": "Esha Bhandari ACLU Staff Biography\nOfficial ACLU biography for Esha Bhandari, Director of the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project.\nsource attorney digital-rights privacy\n`PERSON-ESHA-BHANDARI`", "title": "Esha Bhandari ACLU Staff Biography", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-BLAZE-GEORGETOWN", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-BLAZE-GEORGETOWN.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BLAZE-GEORGETOWN.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Georgetown University faculty profile for Matt Blaze describing his research in cryptography, secure systems, and trust management.", "tags": ["source", "person", "cryptography", "privacy"], "text": "Matt Blaze Georgetown Faculty Profile\nGeorgetown University faculty profile for Matt Blaze describing his research in cryptography, secure systems, and trust management.\nsource person cryptography privacy\n`PERSON-MATT-BLAZE`", "title": "Matt Blaze Georgetown Faculty Profile", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "BMG publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works, and removed copyright management information.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)\nBMG publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works, and removed copyright management information.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Press release from Senator Cory Booker's office announcing the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act.", "tags": ["source", "person", "privacy", "digital-rights", "internet-governance"], "text": "Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising\nPress release from Senator Cory Booker's office announcing the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act.\nsource person privacy digital-rights internet-governance\n`PERSON-CORY-BOOKER`", "title": "Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-BOYD-MSR", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-BOYD-MSR.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOYD-MSR.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Microsoft Research profile and institutional announcements for danah boyd describing her role as partner researcher and work on social media, algorithmic bias, and youth online behavior.", "tags": ["source", "person", "privacy", "internet-governance"], "text": "danah boyd Microsoft Research Profile\nMicrosoft Research profile and institutional announcements for danah boyd describing her role as partner researcher and work on social media, algorithmic bias, and youth online behavior.\nsource person privacy internet-governance\n`PERSON-DANAH-BOYD`", "title": "danah boyd Microsoft Research Profile", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO", "last_verified": "2026-07-19", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official GovInfo United States Reports record for Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.", "tags": ["source", "case-law", "first-amendment", "digital-rights"], "text": "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (GovInfo)\nOfficial GovInfo United States Reports record for Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.\nsource case-law first-amendment digital-rights\n`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`", "title": "Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (GovInfo)", "type": "source"} @@ -151,6 +164,8 @@ {"id": "SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "EFF press release announcing Cindy Cohn's departure as Executive Director after 25 years with the organization.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "digital-rights"], "text": "EFF Press Release - Cindy Cohn Stepping Down\nEFF press release announcing Cindy Cohn's departure as Executive Director after 25 years with the organization.\nsource attorney digital-rights\n`PERSON-CINDY-COHN`", "title": "EFF Press Release - Cindy Cohn Stepping Down", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "FOSS Force article reporting Cindy Cohn's plan to return to courtroom litigation after departing as EFF Executive Director.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "digital-rights"], "text": "FOSS Force - Cohn Returns to the Courtroom\nFOSS Force article reporting Cindy Cohn's plan to return to courtroom litigation after departing as EFF Executive Director.\nsource attorney digital-rights\n`PERSON-CINDY-COHN`", "title": "FOSS Force - Cohn Returns to the Courtroom", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of Florida summary-judgment opinion upholding OFAC\u2019s Tornado Cash designation.", "tags": ["source", "case", "sanctions"], "text": "Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)\nNorthern District of Florida summary-judgment opinion upholding OFAC\u2019s Tornado Cash designation.\nsource case sanctions\n`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN` `TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`", "title": "Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Second Concord/UMG/ABKCO publisher complaint against Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann alleging torrenting of books containing musical compositions and later Claude training and outputs.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026)\nSecond Concord/UMG/ABKCO publisher complaint against Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann alleging torrenting of books containing musical compositions and later Claude training and outputs.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Order relating Concord II (No. 5:26-cv-00880) to Concord I (No. 5:24-cv-03811) before Judge Eumi K. Lee.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026)\nOrder relating Concord II (No. 5:26-cv-00880) to Concord I (No. 5:24-cv-03811) before Judge Eumi K. Lee.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`", "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "CourtListener docket for the music-publisher lyric-copyright action against Anthropic, including the original Tennessee filing date reflected on the transferred complaint.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)\nCourtListener docket for the music-publisher lyric-copyright action against Anthropic, including the original Tennessee filing date reflected on the transferred complaint.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California order allowing music publishers\u2019 amended claims for secondary copyright infringement and DMCA CMI removal against Anthropic to proceed.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)\nNorthern District of California order allowing music publishers\u2019 amended claims for secondary copyright infringement and DMCA CMI removal against Anthropic to proceed.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-COOLEY-TECH", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official Cooley LLP practice page describing the firm's technology industry representation.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "open-source-software", "outreach"], "text": "Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page\nOfficial Cooley LLP practice page describing the firm's technology industry representation.\nsource organization open-source-software outreach\n`ORG-COOLEY` `CONTACT-COOLEY`", "title": "Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page", "type": "source"} @@ -158,10 +173,16 @@ {"id": "SRC-CORLEY-LII", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-CORLEY-LII.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CORLEY-LII.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Text of the Second Circuit opinion in Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Universal City Studios v. Corley Opinion Text (Open Casebook)\nText of the Second Circuit opinion in Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).\nsource case copyright speech-and-code\n`CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY`", "title": "Universal City Studios v. Corley Opinion Text (Open Casebook)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET", "last_verified": "2026-07-27", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "CourtListener docket page for United States v. Tunick in the Northern District of Georgia, including indictment, not-guilty plea, and motion-to-suppress hearing entries.", "tags": ["source", "case"], "text": "CourtListener Docket \u2014 United States v. Tunick (1:25-cr-00499)\nCourtListener docket page for United States v. Tunick in the Northern District of Georgia, including indictment, not-guilty plea, and motion-to-suppress hearing entries.\nsource case\n`CASE-US-V-TUNICK`", "title": "CourtListener Docket \u2014 United States v. Tunick (1:25-cr-00499)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation profile for Whitfield Diffie describing public-key cryptography and policy work.", "tags": ["source", "person", "cryptography", "digital-rights"], "text": "Whitfield Diffie Stanford CISAC Profile\nStanford Center for International Security and Cooperation profile for Whitfield Diffie describing public-key cryptography and policy work.\nsource person cryptography digital-rights\n`PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE`", "title": "Whitfield Diffie Stanford CISAC Profile", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Studio complaint alleging that Midjourney copied Disney and Universal character works to train an image generator and that the service outputs unauthorized reproductions and derivatives.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)\nStudio complaint alleging that Midjourney copied Disney and Universal character works to train an image generator and that the service outputs unauthorized reproductions and derivatives.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Magistrate discovery order in the consolidated Disney/Universal/Warner Bros. action against Midjourney, limiting compelled production of the studios\u2019 own generative-AI materials to consumer-facing uses of the asserted works.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)\nMagistrate discovery order in the consolidated Disney/Universal/Warner Bros. action against Midjourney, limiting compelled production of the studios\u2019 own generative-AI materials to consumer-facing uses of the asserted works.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Ninth Circuit CourtListener docket for the interlocutory appeal from the Northern District of California Copilot / GitHub copyright-management-information order.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "open-source-software"], "text": "Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)\nNinth Circuit CourtListener docket for the interlocutory appeal from the Northern District of California Copilot / GitHub copyright-management-information order.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence open-source-software\n`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice open-source developers\u2019 DMCA \u00a7 1202(b) claims against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI entities, while allowing breach-of-open-source-license claims to proceed.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "open-source-software"], "text": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)\nNorthern District of California order dismissing with prejudice open-source developers\u2019 DMCA \u00a7 1202(b) claims against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI entities, while allowing breach-of-open-source-license claims to proceed.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence open-source-software\n`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "DOJ Cybercrime archive press release on Dmitry Sklyarov\u2019s deferred-prosecution agreement in the first DMCA criminal case.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "open-source-risk"], "text": "DOJ \u2014 Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001)\nDOJ Cybercrime archive press release on Dmitry Sklyarov\u2019s deferred-prosecution agreement in the first DMCA criminal case.\nsource case copyright open-source-risk\n`CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV` `TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY`", "title": "DOJ \u2014 Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Archived DOJ press release announcing the first DMCA criminal indictment against Dmitry Sklyarov and Elcomsoft Co. Ltd.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "open-source-risk"], "text": "DOJ \u2014 First DMCA Indictment Against Sklyarov and Elcomsoft (Aug. 28, 2001)\nArchived DOJ press release announcing the first DMCA criminal indictment against Dmitry Sklyarov and Elcomsoft Co. Ltd.\nsource case copyright open-source-risk\n`CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV` `TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY`", "title": "DOJ \u2014 First DMCA Indictment Against Sklyarov and Elcomsoft (Aug. 28, 2001)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office SDNY page stating Roman Storm was convicted in August 2025 of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business.", "tags": ["source", "case", "computer-crime"], "text": "SDNY National Security Page \u2014 Roman Storm Conviction Note (Aug. 2025)\nU.S. Attorney\u2019s Office SDNY page stating Roman Storm was convicted in August 2025 of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business.\nsource case computer-crime\n`CASE-US-V-STORM` `TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`", "title": "SDNY National Security Page \u2014 Roman Storm Conviction Note (Aug. 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "DOJ-hosted indictment charging Roman Storm and Roman Semenov with money-laundering, unlicensed money-transmitting, and IEEPA conspiracies related to Tornado Cash.", "tags": ["source", "case", "computer-crime", "sanctions"], "text": "United States v. Storm / Semenov Indictment (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2023)\nDOJ-hosted indictment charging Roman Storm and Roman Semenov with money-laundering, unlicensed money-transmitting, and IEEPA conspiracies related to Tornado Cash.\nsource case computer-crime sanctions\n`CASE-US-V-STORM` `TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`", "title": "United States v. Storm / Semenov Indictment (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2023)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "CourtListener docket for the Wall Street Journal and New York Post copyright action against Perplexity AI.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984)\nCourtListener docket for the Wall Street Journal and New York Post copyright action against Perplexity AI.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`", "title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Southern District of New York opinion denying Perplexity\u2019s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, denying transfer, and allowing later-registered works to remain in the case.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025)\nSouthern District of New York opinion denying Perplexity\u2019s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, denying transfer, and allowing later-registered works to remain in the case.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Essay arguing that Hyphanet/Freenet could not use centralized moderation and instead propagated user blocking through Web of Trust mechanisms so disruption would not scale better than defense.", "tags": ["source", "censorship-resistance", "peer-to-peer-networking", "privacy"], "text": "Arne Babenhauserheide \u2014 The Path Towards Decentralized Moderation\nEssay arguing that Hyphanet/Freenet could not use centralized moderation and instead propagated user blocking through Web of Trust mechanisms so disruption would not scale better than defense.\nsource censorship-resistance peer-to-peer-networking privacy\n`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`", "title": "Arne Babenhauserheide \u2014 The Path Towards Decentralized Moderation", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "2018 essay by Hyphanet contributor Arne Babenhauserheide arguing that Frost forums collapsed under anonymous spam and that Web of Trust systems restored constructive communication.", "tags": ["source", "censorship-resistance", "peer-to-peer-networking", "privacy"], "text": "Arne Babenhauserheide \u2014 Hyphanet Web of Trust Keeps Communication Friendly\n2018 essay by Hyphanet contributor Arne Babenhauserheide arguing that Frost forums collapsed under anonymous spam and that Web of Trust systems restored constructive communication.\nsource censorship-resistance peer-to-peer-networking privacy\n`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION` `TECH-HYPHANET`", "title": "Arne Babenhauserheide \u2014 Hyphanet Web of Trust Keeps Communication Friendly", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-EFF-ABOUT", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-EFF-ABOUT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-EFF-ABOUT.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official EFF about page describing the organization's mission, history, and nonprofit status.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "digital-rights", "outreach"], "text": "Electronic Frontier Foundation About Page\nOfficial EFF about page describing the organization's mission, history, and nonprofit status.\nsource organization digital-rights outreach\n`ORG-EFF` Electronic Frontier Foundation Digital civil liberties organizations Outreach verification", "title": "Electronic Frontier Foundation About Page", "type": "source"} @@ -187,7 +208,11 @@ {"id": "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Middle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights"], "text": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)\nMiddle District of Florida order allowing most product-liability and negligence claims against Character.AI and Google to proceed while dismissing IIED and Alphabet Inc.\nsource case first-amendment artificial-intelligence digital-rights\n`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`", "title": "Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "LG M\u00fcnchen I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 \u2013 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)\nFirst-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in GPT-4 and GPT-4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed German and EU copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "LG M\u00fcnchen I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 \u2013 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)\nOfficial court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI judgment and stating that the decision is not final.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "Landgericht M\u00fcnchen I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "High Court of England and Wales trial judgment dismissing Getty\u2019s secondary copyright claim against Stable Diffusion and finding limited historic trade-mark infringement from generated watermarks.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)\nHigh Court of England and Wales trial judgment dismissing Getty\u2019s secondary copyright claim against Stable Diffusion and finding limited historic trade-mark infringement from generated watermarks.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Getty Images complaint alleging that Stability AI copied millions of Getty photographs to train Stable Diffusion and infringed copyrights and trademarks.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)\nGetty Images complaint alleging that Stability AI copied millions of Getty photographs to train Stable Diffusion and infringed copyrights and trademarks.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California order dismissing Getty\u2019s DMCA \u00a7 1202(a) false-CMI claim without prejudice and allowing trademark and California unfair-competition claims to proceed.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026)\nNorthern District of California order dismissing Getty\u2019s DMCA \u00a7 1202(a) false-CMI claim without prejudice and allowing trademark and California unfair-competition claims to proceed.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official GNUnet about page describing the project as a Free Software stack for secure, decentralized, privacy-preserving networking and stating it remains early alpha despite its age.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "privacy", "censorship-resistance", "peer-to-peer-networking", "open-source-software"], "text": "GNUnet About Page\nOfficial GNUnet about page describing the project as a Free Software stack for secure, decentralized, privacy-preserving networking and stating it remains early alpha despite its age.\nsource organization privacy censorship-resistance peer-to-peer-networking open-source-software\n`TECH-GNUNET` `TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`", "title": "GNUnet About Page", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice direct-infringement claims as to specified Google models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, while leaving training claims as to Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related models for later stages.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)\nNorthern District of California order dismissing with prejudice direct-infringement claims as to specified Google models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, while leaving training claims as to Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related models for later stages.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Justia reproduction of the Supreme Court opinion in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "speech-and-code", "open-source-software"], "text": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)\nJustia reproduction of the Supreme Court opinion in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.\nsource case copyright speech-and-code open-source-software\n`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`", "title": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official ACLU biography page for Jennifer Granick documenting her role as surveillance and cybersecurity counsel.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "privacy", "surveillance"], "text": "Jennifer Granick ACLU Staff Biography\nOfficial ACLU biography page for Jennifer Granick documenting her role as surveillance and cybersecurity counsel.\nsource attorney privacy surveillance\n`PERSON-JENNIFER-GRANICK`", "title": "Jennifer Granick ACLU Staff Biography", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES", "last_verified": "2026-07-27", "path": "bibliography/technical/SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official GrapheneOS features documentation describing the optional duress PIN/password that irreversibly wipes the device and installed eSIMs when entered.", "tags": ["source", "technology", "privacy", "open-source-software"], "text": "GrapheneOS Features Overview \u2014 Duress PIN/Password\nOfficial GrapheneOS features documentation describing the optional duress PIN/password that irreversibly wipes the device and installed eSIMs when entered.\nsource technology privacy open-source-software\n`TECH-GRAPHENEOS` `CASE-US-V-TUNICK`", "title": "GrapheneOS Features Overview \u2014 Duress PIN/Password", "type": "source"} @@ -201,10 +226,12 @@ {"id": "SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Institute for Free Speech about page describing its First Amendment political speech litigation and advocacy mission.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "first-amendment"], "text": "Institute for Free Speech About Us Page\nOfficial Institute for Free Speech about page describing its First Amendment political speech litigation and advocacy mission.\nsource organization first-amendment\n`ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH`", "title": "Institute for Free Speech About Us Page", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-IJ-ABOUT", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-IJ-ABOUT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-IJ-ABOUT.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official about page of the Institute for Justice describing its mission and practice areas.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "first-amendment"], "text": "Institute for Justice About Us Page\nOfficial about page of the Institute for Justice describing its mission and practice areas.\nsource organization first-amendment\n`ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE`", "title": "Institute for Justice About Us Page", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official First Amendment issues page of the Institute for Justice describing its free speech litigation.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "first-amendment"], "text": "Institute for Justice First Amendment Practice Area\nOfficial First Amendment issues page of the Institute for Justice describing its free speech litigation.\nsource organization first-amendment\n`ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE`", "title": "Institute for Justice First Amendment Practice Area", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Southern District of New York order holding that author class plaintiffs adequately pleaded ChatGPT output-based copyright infringement, without deciding fair use.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025)\nSouthern District of New York order holding that author class plaintiffs adequately pleaded ChatGPT output-based copyright infringement, without deciding fair use.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "IRS Criminal Investigation announcement of guilty pleas by Samourai Wallet co-founders Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill.", "tags": ["source", "case", "computer-crime", "open-source-risk"], "text": "IRS-CI \u2014 Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025)\nIRS Criminal Investigation announcement of guilty pleas by Samourai Wallet co-founders Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill.\nsource case computer-crime open-source-risk\n`CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ` `TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY`", "title": "IRS-CI \u2014 Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "IRS Criminal Investigation announcement of prison sentences for Samourai Wallet co-founders Rodriguez and Hill.", "tags": ["source", "case", "computer-crime", "open-source-risk"], "text": "IRS-CI \u2014 Samourai Wallet Founders Sentenced (Nov. 2025)\nIRS Criminal Investigation announcement of prison sentences for Samourai Wallet co-founders Rodriguez and Hill.\nsource case computer-crime open-source-risk\n`CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ` `TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY`", "title": "IRS-CI \u2014 Samourai Wallet Founders Sentenced (Nov. 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-JAFFER-KNIGHT", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-JAFFER-KNIGHT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-JAFFER-KNIGHT.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Knight First Amendment Institute biography for executive director Jameel Jaffer.", "tags": ["source", "attorney", "first-amendment"], "text": "Jameel Jaffer Knight Institute Biography\nOfficial Knight First Amendment Institute biography for executive director Jameel Jaffer.\nsource attorney first-amendment\n`PERSON-JAMEEL-JAFFER`", "title": "Jameel Jaffer Knight Institute Biography", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-JEWEL-V-NSA-EFF", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-JEWEL-V-NSA-EFF.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JEWEL-V-NSA-EFF.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "EFF case page documenting the Supreme Court's 2022 rejection of Jewel v. NSA, ending the flagship mass surveillance challenge without a ruling on the merits.", "tags": ["source", "case", "privacy", "surveillance", "fourth-amendment"], "text": "EFF Jewel v. NSA Case Page - Supreme Court Rejection\nEFF case page documenting the Supreme Court's 2022 rejection of Jewel v. NSA, ending the flagship mass surveillance challenge without a ruling on the merits.\nsource case privacy surveillance fourth-amendment\n`PERSON-CINDY-COHN`", "title": "EFF Jewel v. NSA Case Page - Supreme Court Rejection", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation order centralizing OpenAI copyright actions in the Southern District of New York before Judge Sidney H. Stein.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143)\nJudicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation order centralizing OpenAI copyright actions in the Southern District of New York before Judge Sidney H. Stein.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "ACLU of Ohio case page documenting Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000).", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "cryptography", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page\nACLU of Ohio case page documenting Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000).\nsource case first-amendment cryptography speech-and-code\n`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`", "title": "Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-JUNGER-CMU", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-CMU.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-CMU.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Full text of the Sixth Circuit opinion in Junger v. Daley hosted by Carnegie Mellon University.", "tags": ["source", "case", "first-amendment", "cryptography", "speech-and-code"], "text": "Junger v. Daley Opinion Text (CMU)\nFull text of the Sixth Circuit opinion in Junger v. Daley hosted by Carnegie Mellon University.\nsource case first-amendment cryptography speech-and-code\n`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`", "title": "Junger v. Daley Opinion Text (CMU)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER", "last_verified": "2026-06-17", "path": "bibliography/academic/SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Foundational 2002 conference paper by Petar Maymounkov and David Mazi\u00e8res describing the Kademlia distributed hash table.", "tags": ["source", "academic-paper", "peer-to-peer-networking", "distributed-systems", "distributed-hash-tables"], "text": "Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric\nFoundational 2002 conference paper by Petar Maymounkov and David Mazi\u00e8res describing the Kademlia distributed hash table.\nsource academic-paper peer-to-peer-networking distributed-systems distributed-hash-tables\nKademlia Distributed hash tables Peer-to-peer networking Distributed systems", "title": "Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric", "type": "source"} @@ -212,6 +239,8 @@ {"id": "SRC-KAHN-CNRI", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-KAHN-CNRI.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAHN-CNRI.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official CNRI biography for Robert E. Kahn describing his co-invention of TCP/IP, DARPA Internet program leadership, and founding role at the Corporation for National Research Initiatives.", "tags": ["source", "person", "internet-architecture", "internet-governance"], "text": "Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography\nOfficial CNRI biography for Robert E. Kahn describing his co-invention of TCP/IP, DARPA Internet program leadership, and founding role at the Corporation for National Research Initiatives.\nsource person internet-architecture internet-governance\n`PERSON-ROBERT-KAHN`", "title": "Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-KAY-CHM", "last_verified": "2026-07-04", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-KAY-CHM.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAY-CHM.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Computer History Museum fellow profile for Alan Kay describing object-oriented programming, Smalltalk, and personal computing contributions.", "tags": ["source", "person", "open-source-software", "internet-architecture"], "text": "Alan Kay Computer History Museum Profile\nComputer History Museum fellow profile for Alan Kay describing object-oriented programming, Smalltalk, and personal computing contributions.\nsource person open-source-software internet-architecture\n`PERSON-ALAN-KAY`", "title": "Alan Kay Computer History Museum Profile", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Press release from Representative Ro Khanna's office announcing the Internet Bill of Rights principles endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee.", "tags": ["source", "person", "internet-governance", "digital-rights", "privacy"], "text": "Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee\nPress release from Representative Ro Khanna's office announcing the Internet Bill of Rights principles endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee.\nsource person internet-governance digital-rights privacy\n`PERSON-RO-KHANNA`", "title": "Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Hamburg Regional Court first-instance judgment dismissing a photographer\u2019s claim against LAION, holding that downloading an image to build a training dataset was covered by the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024)\nHamburg Regional Court first-instance judgment dismissing a photographer\u2019s claim against LAION, holding that downloading an image to build a training dataset was covered by the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Hanseatic Higher Regional Court report that the photographer\u2019s appeal was dismissed and that LAION\u2019s dataset download was covered by both \u00a7 44b and \u00a7 60d UrhG.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025)\nHanseatic Higher Regional Court report that the photographer\u2019s appeal was dismissed and that LAION\u2019s dataset download was covered by both \u00a7 44b and \u00a7 60d UrhG.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official about page of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "first-amendment"], "text": "Knight First Amendment Institute About Page\nOfficial about page of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.\nsource organization first-amendment\n`ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT`", "title": "Knight First Amendment Institute About Page", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT", "last_verified": "2026-06-25", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official FAQ and contact information for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "first-amendment"], "text": "Knight First Amendment Institute Contact and FAQ Page\nOfficial FAQ and contact information for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.\nsource organization first-amendment\n`ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT`", "title": "Knight First Amendment Institute Contact and FAQ Page", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Official Louisiana enrolled Act No. 185 text re-enacting app-store age verification and parental-consent duties with substantive provisions effective July 1, 2027.", "tags": ["source", "statute", "age-verification", "public-policy"], "text": "Louisiana Act No. 185 \u2014 App Store Accountability Act (2026)\nOfficial Louisiana enrolled Act No. 185 text re-enacting app-store age verification and parental-consent duties with substantive provisions effective July 1, 2027.\nsource statute age-verification public-policy\n`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`", "title": "Louisiana Act No. 185 \u2014 App Store Accountability Act (2026)", "type": "source"} @@ -231,6 +260,7 @@ {"id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Southern District of New York order dismissing with prejudice news plaintiffs\u2019 material-contribution contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft after Cox.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)\nSouthern District of New York order dismissing with prejudice news plaintiffs\u2019 material-contribution contributory copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft after Cox.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Complaint alleging that Microsoft and OpenAI copied New York Times works to train large language models and that model outputs reproduced Times content.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)\nComplaint alleging that Microsoft and OpenAI copied New York Times works to train large language models and that model outputs reproduced Times content.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Southern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft while dismissing specified DMCA and hot-news claims.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)\nSouthern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft while dismissing specified DMCA and hot-news claims.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "CourtListener docket for the New York Times copyright and trademark action against Perplexity AI, filed December 5, 2025.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106)\nCourtListener docket for the New York Times copyright and trademark action against Perplexity AI, filed December 5, 2025.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`", "title": "The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "OFAC FAQ describing Tornado Cash designation history, SDN identifiers, and guidance on open-source code interactions.", "tags": ["source", "sanctions", "open-source-software"], "text": "OFAC FAQ 1076 \u2014 Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation\nOFAC FAQ describing Tornado Cash designation history, SDN identifiers, and guidance on open-source code interactions.\nsource sanctions open-source-software\n`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH` `CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY` `TECH-TORNADO-CASH`", "title": "OFAC FAQ 1076 \u2014 Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "OFAC recent-actions notice documenting removal of Tornado Cash SDN list entries on March 21, 2025.", "tags": ["source", "sanctions"], "text": "OFAC Recent Actions \u2014 Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)\nOFAC recent-actions notice documenting removal of Tornado Cash SDN list entries on March 21, 2025.\nsource sanctions\n`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH` `CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY`", "title": "OFAC Recent Actions \u2014 Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT", "last_verified": null, "path": "bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Internal bootstrap prompt defining the initial OIR mission, principles, repository layout, knowledge model, and workflow.", "tags": ["source", "imported-source", "project-governance"], "text": "OIR Bootstrap Prompt\nInternal bootstrap prompt defining the initial OIR mission, principles, repository layout, knowledge model, and workflow.\nsource imported-source project-governance\nRepository foundation Project charter alignment Initial data model and workflow conventions", "title": "OIR Bootstrap Prompt", "type": "source"} @@ -277,6 +307,7 @@ {"id": "SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Signal specification for the Double Ratchet algorithm used to derive new message keys in secure messaging sessions.", "tags": ["source", "technical", "cryptography", "secure-messaging", "privacy"], "text": "The Double Ratchet Algorithm\nOfficial Signal specification for the Double Ratchet algorithm used to derive new message keys in secure messaging sessions.\nsource technical cryptography secure-messaging privacy\n`ORG-SIGNAL` Signal Protocol Secure messaging Double Ratchet algorithm", "title": "The Double Ratchet Algorithm", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-SIGNAL-HOME", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/organizations/SRC-SIGNAL-HOME.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-SIGNAL-HOME.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Signal website describing Signal's private messaging service, encryption, nonprofit status, and privacy positioning.", "tags": ["source", "organization", "privacy", "secure-messaging"], "text": "Signal Official Website\nOfficial Signal website describing Signal's private messaging service, encryption, nonprofit status, and privacy positioning.\nsource organization privacy secure-messaging\nSignal Secure messaging Privacy organizations", "title": "Signal Official Website", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH", "last_verified": "2026-06-19", "path": "bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md", "sources": [], "status": "verified", "summary": "Official Signal specification for the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol used in secure messaging.", "tags": ["source", "technical", "cryptography", "secure-messaging", "privacy"], "text": "The X3DH Key Agreement Protocol\nOfficial Signal specification for the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol used in secure messaging.\nsource technical cryptography secure-messaging privacy\n`ORG-SIGNAL` Signal Protocol Secure messaging X3DH key agreement", "title": "The X3DH Key Agreement Protocol", "type": "source"} +{"id": "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Music-publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude, and that outputs reproduce those compositions.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)\nMusic-publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude, and that outputs reproduce those compositions.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`", "title": "Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Second Sony-affiliated complaint against Udio asserting 30,117 additional sound recordings after leave to expand the 2024 action was denied.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)\nSecond Sony-affiliated complaint against Udio asserting 30,117 additional sound recordings after leave to expand the 2024 action was denied.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO` `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "Complaint seeking a declaration that AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are not protected by copyright.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)\nComplaint seeking a declaration that AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in the Roblox game Steal a Brainrot are not protected by copyright.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`", "title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)", "type": "source"} {"id": "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md", "relationships": [], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md", "sources": [], "status": "draft", "summary": "CourtListener docket record for the Steal a Brainrot copyright and trademark dispute in the Northern District of California.", "tags": ["source", "case", "copyright", "artificial-intelligence"], "text": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)\nCourtListener docket record for the Steal a Brainrot copyright and trademark dispute in the Northern District of California.\nsource case copyright artificial-intelligence\n`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT`", "title": "Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)", "type": "source"} @@ -353,9 +384,9 @@ {"id": "TECH-PGP", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-PGP.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"], "subject": "TECH-PGP"}, {"object": "PERSON-PHIL-ZIMMERMANN", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"], "subject": "TECH-PGP"}, {"object": "EVENT-ZIMMERMANN-PGP-INVESTIGATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996"], "subject": "TECH-PGP"}, {"object": "TOPIC-END-TO-END-ENCRYPTION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO"], "subject": "TECH-PGP"}, {"object": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"], "subject": "TECH-PGP"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-PGP.md", "sources": ["SRC-ZIMMERMANN-BIO", "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996", "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-INVESTIGATION-CLOSED"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) is public-key encryption software created by Phil Zimmermann and published in 1991; its distribution triggered a multi-year U.S. criminal export investigation that closed without prosecution in 1996.", "tags": ["technology", "cryptography", "privacy", "open-source-software", "export-control", "speech-and-code", "case-studies", "digital-rights"], "text": "Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)\nPretty Good Privacy (PGP) is public-key encryption software created by Phil Zimmermann and published in 1991; its distribution triggered a multi-year U.S. criminal export investigation that closed without prosecution in 1996.\ntechnology cryptography privacy open-source-software export-control speech-and-code case-studies digital-rights", "title": "Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)", "type": "technology"} {"id": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"}, {"object": "CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"}, {"object": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025"], "subject": "TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-SAMOURAI-WALLET.md", "sources": ["SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025", "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Samourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy wallet whose co-founders pled guilty in 2025 in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds; government announcements describe mixer features including Whirlpool.", "tags": ["technology", "privacy", "privacy-preserving-systems", "open-source-risk", "developer-rights", "case-studies", "computer-crime", "digital-rights"], "text": "Samourai Wallet\nSamourai Wallet was a Bitcoin privacy wallet whose co-founders pled guilty in 2025 in S.D.N.Y. to conspiracy to operate a money transmitting business knowing it transmitted crime proceeds; government announcements describe mixer features including Whirlpool.\ntechnology privacy privacy-preserving-systems open-source-risk developer-rights case-studies computer-crime digital-rights", "title": "Samourai Wallet", "type": "technology"} {"id": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH", "last_verified": "2026-07-23", "path": "knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"}, {"object": "TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"}, {"object": "CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TECH-TORNADO-CASH"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md", "sources": ["SRC-VAN-LOON-5TH-CIR-JUSTIA", "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076", "SRC-TREASURY-TC-AUG-2022"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and shuffles cryptocurrency deposits so withdrawals can be made to different addresses, reducing on-chain linkability between deposit and withdrawal.", "tags": ["technology", "privacy-preserving-systems", "censorship-resistance", "open-source-software", "tornado-cash", "case-studies"], "text": "Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)\nTornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and shuffles cryptocurrency deposits so withdrawals can be made to different addresses, reducing on-chain linkability between deposit and withdrawal.\ntechnology privacy-preserving-systems censorship-resistance open-source-software tornado-cash case-studies", "title": "Tornado Cash (Ethereum Mixer Protocol)", "type": "technology"} -{"id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023", "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025", "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.", "tags": ["copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights", "case-studies"], "text": "Copyright and Generative AI\nU.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims.\ncopyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights case-studies", "title": "Copyright and Generative AI", "type": "topic"} -{"id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md", "relationships": [{"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"notes": "Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil product liability, not a criminal developer prosecution.", "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.", "tags": ["artificial-intelligence", "copyright", "first-amendment", "digital-rights", "case-studies", "intermediary-liability"], "text": "AI Litigation Landscape\nInventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.\nartificial-intelligence copyright first-amendment digital-rights case-studies intermediary-liability", "title": "AI Litigation Landscape", "type": "topic"} -{"id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET", "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.", "tags": ["copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights", "case-studies"], "text": "Music Copyright and Generative AI\nMusic-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.\ncopyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights case-studies", "title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI", "type": "topic"} +{"id": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "PERSON-KIT-WALSH", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023", "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025", "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII", "SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO"], "status": "draft", "summary": "U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation.", "tags": ["copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights", "case-studies"], "text": "Copyright and Generative AI\nU.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation.\ncopyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights case-studies", "title": "Copyright and Generative AI", "type": "topic"} +{"id": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md", "relationships": [{"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-KADREY-V-META", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"notes": "Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil product liability, not a criminal developer prosecution.", "object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}, {"object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.", "tags": ["artificial-intelligence", "copyright", "first-amendment", "digital-rights", "case-studies", "intermediary-liability"], "text": "AI Litigation Landscape\nInventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues.\nartificial-intelligence copyright first-amendment digital-rights case-studies intermediary-liability", "title": "AI Litigation Landscape", "type": "topic"} +{"id": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT", "last_verified": "2026-09-02", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "CASE-UMG-V-SUNO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-UMG-V-UDIO", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "STAT-USC-107", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}, {"object": "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md", "sources": ["SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET", "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "SRC-USC-17-107-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.", "tags": ["copyright", "artificial-intelligence", "digital-rights", "case-studies"], "text": "Music Copyright and Generative AI\nMusic-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment.\ncopyright artificial-intelligence digital-rights case-studies", "title": "Music Copyright and Generative AI", "type": "topic"} {"id": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION", "last_verified": "2026-08-08", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md", "relationships": [{"object": "STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE"], "subject": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION"}, {"object": "STAT-TX-APP-STORE-ACCOUNTABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED"], "subject": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION"}, {"object": "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"], "subject": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER"], "subject": "TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md", "sources": ["SRC-CA-CIV-1798-500-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE", "SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS", "SRC-TX-SB-2420-ENROLLED", "SRC-CCIA-V-PAXTON-PI-ORDER", "SRC-CA5-SB2420-STAY-ORDER", "SRC-CCIA-SB2420-LITIGATION-PAGE", "SRC-TX-TRIBUNE-SB2420-SCOTUS-2026", "SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA", "SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED", "SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Overview of U.S. state laws that pressure app stores and operating systems to verify or signal user age and to gate minors\u2019 app access\u2014covering California\u2019s OS age-bracket signaling act, Texas/Utah/Louisiana/Alabama App Store Accountability Acts, key implementation dates, and major litigation status.", "tags": ["age-verification", "first-amendment", "privacy", "digital-rights", "public-policy", "internet-governance"], "text": "App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws\nOverview of U.S. state laws that pressure app stores and operating systems to verify or signal user age and to gate minors\u2019 app access\u2014covering California\u2019s OS age-bracket signaling act, Texas/Utah/Louisiana/Alabama App Store Accountability Acts, key implementation dates, and major litigation status.\nage-verification first-amendment privacy digital-rights public-policy internet-governance", "title": "App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws", "type": "topic"} {"id": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT", "last_verified": "2026-08-22", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024"], "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"}, {"object": "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT"], "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"}, {"object": "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC"], "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"}, {"object": "TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023"], "subject": "TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md", "sources": ["SRC-OXFORD-BRAIN-ROT-WOTY-2024", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET", "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023", "SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025"], "status": "draft", "summary": "Documents the 2024 lexical sense of \u201cbrain rot\u201d and the later copyright fight over AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.", "tags": ["artificial-intelligence", "copyright", "digital-rights", "case-studies"], "text": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters\nDocuments the 2024 lexical sense of \u201cbrain rot\u201d and the later copyright fight over AI-generated \u201cbrainrot\u201d meme characters used in games such as Steal a Brainrot.\nartificial-intelligence copyright digital-rights case-studies", "title": "Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters", "type": "topic"} {"id": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH", "last_verified": "2026-07-25", "path": "knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md", "relationships": [{"object": "SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "SRC-JUNGER-CMU", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "SRC-CORLEY-LII", "predicate": "cites", "sources": ["SRC-CORLEY-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-JUNGER-CMU"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "CASE-UNIVERSAL-V-CORLEY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-CORLEY-LII"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}, {"object": "TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY", "predicate": "related_to", "sources": ["SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA"], "subject": "TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH"}], "source_doc_path": "source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-CODE-AS-SPEECH.md", "sources": ["SRC-US-CONST-AMEND-I-LII", "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-GOVINFO", "SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC", "SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA", "SRC-JUNGER-CMU", "SRC-CORLEY-LII"], "status": "draft", "summary": "The code-as-speech doctrine concerns whether software source code receives First Amendment protection, tracing Bernstein, Junger, and Corley, and examining whether that protection could extend to open-source development practices.", "tags": ["first-amendment", "speech-and-code", "digital-rights", "constitutional-law", "open-source-software", "cryptography", "copyright"], "text": "Code as Speech\nThe code-as-speech doctrine concerns whether software source code receives First Amendment protection, tracing Bernstein, Junger, and Corley, and examining whether that protection could extend to open-source development practices.\nfirst-amendment speech-and-code digital-rights constitutional-law open-source-software cryptography copyright", "title": "Code as Speech", "type": "topic"} diff --git a/generated/review-status.json b/generated/review-status.json index f17a2714..081c5fd6 100644 --- a/generated/review-status.json +++ b/generated/review-status.json @@ -1,16 +1,16 @@ { "by_status": { - "draft": 259, + "draft": 290, "verified": 116 }, "by_type": { "attorney": 18, - "case": 31, + "case": 41, "historical_event": 4, "organization": 23, "person": 30, "protocol": 3, - "source": 232, + "source": 253, "statute": 8, "technology": 6, "topic": 20 @@ -24,10 +24,13 @@ "needing_review": [ "SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED", "SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026", + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET", + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", "SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", "SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING", "SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008", "SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS", @@ -41,14 +44,22 @@ "SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-BIO", "SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001", "SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-COOLEY-TECH", "SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001", "SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001", "SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025", "SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", "SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION", "SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018", "SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE", @@ -65,7 +76,11 @@ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", "SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT", + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA", "SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES", "SRC-GUARDIAN-FREENET-DARK-SIDE-2009", @@ -74,10 +89,14 @@ "SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME", "SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README", "SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII", + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025", "SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025", + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", "SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", "SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA", "SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS", "SRC-LEE-GOVERNMENT-SURVEILLANCE-REFORM", @@ -88,6 +107,7 @@ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", + "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", "SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076", "SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321", "SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT", @@ -101,6 +121,7 @@ "SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024", "SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV", "SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET", @@ -138,25 +159,35 @@ "SRC-WYDEN-SECTION-230", "SRC-WYDEN-USA-RIGHTS-ACT", "SRC-ZIMMERMANN-DECLINATION-1996", + "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", "CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC", "CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ", + "CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC", "CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS", "CASE-CARPENTER-V-US", "CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420", "CASE-CHATRIE-V-US", "CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN", "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", + "CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY", + "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", "CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES", "CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI", + "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", "CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE", + "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", "CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY", "CASE-KADREY-V-META", + "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", "CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL", "CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV", "CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI", "CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC", "CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL", "CASE-RENO-V-ACLU", + "CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC", "CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM", "CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER", "CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS", @@ -285,7 +316,7 @@ "schema_version": 1, "totals": { "missing_last_verified": 3, - "needing_review": 259, - "records": 375 + "needing_review": 290, + "records": 406 } } diff --git a/generated/timeline.json b/generated/timeline.json index 912717a7..bffa5b96 100644 --- a/generated/timeline.json +++ b/generated/timeline.json @@ -217,6 +217,22 @@ "record_title": "Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)", "record_type": "case" }, + { + "date": "2024-06-24", + "description": "Open-source developers\u2019 action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026.", + "event_type": "decision", + "record_id": "CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB", + "record_title": "Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.", + "record_type": "case" + }, + { + "date": "2024-08-12", + "description": "Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice.", + "event_type": "decision", + "record_id": "CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "record_type": "case" + }, { "date": "2024-08-24", "description": "Pavel Durov is the founder, owner, and CEO of Telegram; OIR documents Russian and French criminal proceedings alleging platform-related facilitation or moderation failures, including a July 2026 FSB charge and international wanted listing.", @@ -233,6 +249,14 @@ "record_title": "Pavel Durov", "record_type": "person" }, + { + "date": "2024-09-27", + "description": "German photographer\u2019s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception.", + "event_type": "decision", + "record_id": "CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION", + "record_title": "Kneschke v. LAION e.V.", + "record_type": "case" + }, { "date": "2024-11-26", "description": "Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024), held that Tornado Cash immutable smart contracts are not \u201cproperty\u201d under IEEPA and that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority by blocking them.", @@ -321,9 +345,25 @@ "record_title": "United States v. Storm", "record_type": "case" }, + { + "date": "2025-08-21", + "description": "Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity\u2019s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district.", + "event_type": "decision", + "record_id": "CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY", + "record_title": "Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.", + "record_type": "case" + }, + { + "date": "2025-09-11", + "description": "Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims.", + "event_type": "decision", + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI", + "record_title": "In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation", + "record_type": "case" + }, { "date": "2025-10-06", - "description": "Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims.", + "description": "Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic\u2019s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions.", "event_type": "decision", "record_id": "CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC", "record_title": "Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC", @@ -337,6 +377,22 @@ "record_title": "California Digital Age Assurance Act (Civ. Code \u00a7\u00a7 1798.500\u20131798.505)", "record_type": "statute" }, + { + "date": "2025-10-27", + "description": "Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI\u2019s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use.", + "event_type": "decision", + "record_id": "CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI", + "record_title": "In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation", + "record_type": "case" + }, + { + "date": "2025-11-04", + "description": "English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty\u2019s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage.", + "event_type": "decision", + "record_id": "CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY", + "record_title": "Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.", + "record_type": "case" + }, { "date": "2025-11-11", "description": "First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final.", diff --git a/generated/used-for.json b/generated/used-for.json index be9d29c6..871e704c 100644 --- a/generated/used-for.json +++ b/generated/used-for.json @@ -2,6 +2,13 @@ "description": "Generated index of Used For terms from source records.", "schema_version": 1, "terms": [ + { + "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET", + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024" + ], + "term": "`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`" + }, { "sources": [ "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", @@ -18,6 +25,12 @@ ], "term": "`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`" }, + { + "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT" + ], + "term": "`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`" + }, { "sources": [ "SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO", @@ -58,11 +71,35 @@ }, { "sources": [ + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025" ], "term": "`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`" }, + { + "sources": [ + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026" + ], + "term": "`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`" + }, + { + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024" + ], + "term": "`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`" + }, + { + "sources": [ + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", + "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET" + ], + "term": "`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`" + }, { "sources": [ "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT", @@ -77,12 +114,33 @@ ], "term": "`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`" }, + { + "sources": [ + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026" + ], + "term": "`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`" + }, { "sources": [ "SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA" ], "term": "`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`" }, + { + "sources": [ + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025" + ], + "term": "`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`" + }, + { + "sources": [ + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143" + ], + "term": "`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`" + }, { "sources": [ "SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO", @@ -97,6 +155,13 @@ ], "term": "`CASE-KADREY-V-META`" }, + { + "sources": [ + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025" + ], + "term": "`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`" + }, { "sources": [ "SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9", @@ -116,7 +181,8 @@ "sources": [ "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", - "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025" + "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", + "SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET" ], "term": "`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`" }, @@ -142,6 +208,12 @@ ], "term": "`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU`" }, + { + "sources": [ + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026" + ], + "term": "`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`" + }, { "sources": [ "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", @@ -894,14 +966,30 @@ }, { "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT", "SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC", "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", @@ -917,16 +1005,32 @@ }, { "sources": [ + "SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE", "SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL", + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET", + "SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024", + "SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025", "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT", "SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026", + "SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025", + "SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025", + "SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143", "SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024", + "SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT", "SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT" @@ -935,10 +1039,13 @@ }, { "sources": [ + "SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT", + "SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET", "SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025", "SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025", + "SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026", "SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER", "SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT", diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..dbadd61a --- /dev/null +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +--- +id: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY +title: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: cites + object: SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2024-08-12" +--- + +# Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. + +## Summary + +Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 3:23-cv-00201 (N.D. Cal.), is a putative class action by visual artists against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway AI over alleged copying of training images into Stable Diffusion and related products. On August 12, 2024, Judge William H. Orrick denied motions to dismiss the Copyright Act claims, denied Midjourney’s motion to dismiss Lanham Act claims, dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, and dismissed unjust-enrichment and DeviantArt contract claims (the latter with prejudice). The order is a pleading decision, not a fair-use holding. + +## Verified Facts + +- The action was filed January 13, 2023, in the Northern District of California as No. 3:23-cv-00201.[^2] +- The first amended complaint names artists including Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, Hawke Southworth, Grzegorz Rutkowski, Gregory Manchess, Gerald Brom, Jingna Zhang, Julia Kaye, and Adam Ellis, and alleges that Stable Diffusion used their artistic works as training images and can produce outputs “in the style” of those images.[^1] +- Defendants addressed in the August 12, 2024 order are Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc., Midjourney, Inc., DeviantArt, Inc., and Runway AI, Inc.[^1] +- Plaintiffs allege that LAION training sets were used to train versions of Stable Diffusion, that the LAION-5B dataset contains URLs rather than image files, and that anyone using that dataset must first acquire copies of the images from those URLs.[^1] +- On August 12, 2024, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the Copyright Act claims, denied Midjourney’s motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claims, dismissed the DMCA claims with prejudice, dismissed unjust-enrichment claims with leave to amend, and dismissed DeviantArt’s breach-of-contract and implied-covenant claims with prejudice.[^1] + + +[^1]: `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024` — Order (Aug. 12, 2024). Primary for FAC parties, alleged theories, and holdings. + +[^2]: `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET` — CourtListener docket for No. 3:23-cv-00201. Primary for filing date. + +[^3]: `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025` — Order (Sept. 11, 2025). Primary for named-plaintiff overlap with the Google class action. + +## Historical Context + +Andersen is the leading U.S. visual-artist class action in the generative-image wave. It is distinct from [Getty Images v. Stability AI](CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md), an English trial about secondary copyright and watermarks, and from [Disney v. Midjourney](CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md), a studio character-output case. Named plaintiff Sarah Andersen also appears in [In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md), a different docket.[^3] The August 2024 order cited the identicality approach from [Doe v. GitHub](CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) when dismissing DMCA claims.[^1] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: Rule 12(b)(6) order. The court did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) fair use.[^1] + +What survived is a training-copy and induced-infringement theory plus some Lanham Act “in the style of” claims against Midjourney. What did not survive is DMCA copyright-management-information removal, on an identical-copy requirement the court treated as fatal where outputs were not identical to training images.[^1] Later amended complaints and any class-certification or summary-judgment orders are outside the sources cited here. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` cites `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`. +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`. +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`. +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`. +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`. + +## Sources + +1. `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`: Order on motions to dismiss FAC (Aug. 12, 2024). +2. `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET`: CourtListener docket for No. 3:23-cv-00201. +3. `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`: In re Google Generative AI MTD order (Sept. 11, 2025). + +## Research Debt + +- Add the original complaint, the FAC, and any later operative complaint as pleading sources. +- Add the October 30, 2023 first MTD order and later discovery or class-certification orders from those PDFs. +- Add trial-schedule facts only from a court scheduling order, not from secondary trackers. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..304479ed --- /dev/null +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@ +--- +id: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC +title: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +relationships: + - subject: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: cites + object: SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT + - subject: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT + - subject: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC + +## Summary + +BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:26-cv-02334 (N.D. Cal.), is a music-publisher copyright action filed March 17, 2026. BMG alleges that Anthropic copied BMG compositions as training inputs and outputs of Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed or altered copyright management information. The complaint is allegations only and identifies [Concord I and Concord II](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) as related actions against the same defendant. + +## Verified Facts + +- On March 17, 2026, BMG Rights Management (US) LLC filed a complaint in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, No. 5:26-cv-02334, against Anthropic PBC, demanding a jury trial.[^1] +- The complaint pleads, among other claims, copyright infringement in training and output, direct copyright infringement by torrenting, and removal or alteration of copyright management information.[^1] +- BMG alleges that the action concerns substantially the same defendant, property, and events as Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:24-cv-03811 (Concord I) and No. 5:26-cv-00880 (Concord II), and states that it anticipated an administrative motion to relate the cases under Civil Local Rule 3-12.[^1] + + +[^1]: `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT` — Complaint (Mar. 17, 2026). Primary for parties, docket number, claims, and related-case allegations. + +## Historical Context + +BMG is a third U.S. publisher catalog in the Northern District of California lyric-and-piracy cluster, after Concord/UMG/ABKCO and the later [Sony/Warner publishers](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md). It is a composition case, not a sound-recording case against a music generator. + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: complaint only. No source cited here decides [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) or personal liability of Anthropic founders; unlike Concord II and Sony/Warner, this caption names Anthropic PBC alone.[^1] + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` cites `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`. +- `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`. + +## Sources + +1. `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`: BMG complaint (Mar. 17, 2026). + +## Research Debt + +- Add any related-case order, motion to dismiss, or answer from those PDFs. +- Add Exhibit A/B work lists only if OIR needs the asserted-work count from the exhibits themselves. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md index a515626a..c59a5927 100644 --- a/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ id: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC type: case status: draft -summary: Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims. +summary: Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions. tags: - case - copyright @@ -12,6 +12,10 @@ tags: sources: - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET + - SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT + - SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 - SRC-USC-17-107-LII relationships: - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC @@ -19,6 +23,11 @@ relationships: object: SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 sources: - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: cites + object: SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 + sources: + - SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC predicate: related_to object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT @@ -34,7 +43,17 @@ relationships: object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI sources: - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" decision_date: "2025-10-06" --- @@ -42,7 +61,9 @@ decision_date: "2025-10-06" ## Summary -Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.), is music-publisher litigation over song lyrics and Anthropic’s Claude models. After an initial dismissal of secondary-infringement and DMCA claims with leave to amend, Judge Eumi K. Lee on October 6, 2025 denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Direct infringement, contributory and vicarious infringement, and DMCA copyright-management-information claims therefore proceeded past that pleading stage. The case is about musical compositions (lyrics), not sound-recording masters. +Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.) (Concord I), is music-publisher litigation over song lyrics and Anthropic’s Claude models. After an initial dismissal of secondary-infringement and DMCA claims with leave to amend, Judge Eumi K. Lee on October 6, 2025 denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Direct infringement, contributory and vicarious infringement, and DMCA copyright-management-information claims therefore proceeded past that pleading stage. The case is about musical compositions (lyrics), not sound-recording masters. + +A second action, No. 5:26-cv-00880 (Concord II), was filed January 28, 2026, against Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann. Publishers allege torrenting of pirated books that contained their compositions after the court denied leave to add those claims to Concord I. On February 18, 2026, the court related Concord II to Concord I. Concord II is allegations only. ## Verified Facts @@ -53,40 +74,62 @@ Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.), is musi - Claims in the FAC are (I) direct copyright infringement, (II) contributory infringement, (III) vicarious infringement, and (IV) removal or alteration of CMI under the DMCA.[^1] - On March 26, 2025, the court granted Anthropic’s first motion to dismiss the secondary-infringement and CMI claims, with leave to amend. Publishers filed the FAC on April 25, 2025. Anthropic moved again on May 9, 2025.[^1] - On October 6, 2025, the court denied the second motion to dismiss in full, holding that the FAC plausibly alleged contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and DMCA § 1202(b)(1) and (b)(3) claims, and ordered Anthropic to answer within 14 days after a ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.[^1] +- On January 28, 2026, the same publisher group filed Concord II, No. 5:26-cv-00880, against Anthropic PBC, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann. The complaint alleges that publishers moved to amend Concord I to add torrenting claims after Bartz public filings revealed alleged LibGen and PiLiMi downloads, that Anthropic opposed amendment as transforming Concord I, and that publishers therefore brought a separate action.[^3] +- Concord II pleads (I) direct copyright infringement by torrenting against all defendants; (II) direct copyright infringement in training and output; (III) contributory infringement against Anthropic; (IV) vicarious infringement against Anthropic; and (V) removal or alteration of copyright management information.[^3] +- On February 18, 2026, Judge Lee found Concord II related to Concord I and reassigned No. 26-cv-00880 to herself.[^4] -[^1]: `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025` — Order denying MTD (Oct. 6, 2025). Primary for parties, claims, procedural history, alleged FAC facts, and holdings. +[^1]: `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025` — Order denying MTD (Oct. 6, 2025). Primary for parties, claims, procedural history, alleged FAC facts, and Concord I holdings. [^2]: `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET` — CourtListener docket for No. 5:24-cv-03811. Primary for original Tennessee filing date and transfer caption. +[^3]: `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT` — Concord II complaint (Jan. 28, 2026). Primary for Concord II parties, counts, and alleged torrenting theory. + +[^4]: `SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026` — Related-case order (Feb. 18, 2026). Primary for relation to Concord I. + +[^5]: `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT` — BMG complaint (Mar. 17, 2026). Primary for BMG’s related-case allegation. + +[^6]: `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026` — Sony/Warner complaint (Aug. 28, 2026). Primary for that complaint’s reference to Concord I and Concord II. + ## Historical Context -Concord is the leading U.S. publisher suit about lyrics in large language models, distinct from the label suits against [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings) and from [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (books and a pirated-library settlement). The October 2025 order is a pleading decision, not a fair-use holding. +Concord is the leading U.S. publisher suit about lyrics in large language models, distinct from the label suits against [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings) and from [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (books and a pirated-library settlement). The October 2025 order is a pleading decision, not a fair-use holding. Concord II imports Bartz’s alleged torrenting facts into a composition catalog. [BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) later identified both Concord dockets as related, and [Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) refers to Concord I and Concord II.[^5][^6] ## Legal Analysis -Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: Rule 12(b)(6) order. The court accepted FAC allegations as true for that motion and did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md).[^1] +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: Rule 12(b)(6) order in Concord I; complaint and related-case order in Concord II. The court accepted FAC allegations as true for the Concord I motion and did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md).[^1] Two points matter for the rest of the AI-copyright map. First, the works are short, highly memorable lyrics. Publishers allege regurgitation from simple prompts, which is closer to the output-substitution theory in [Times v. OpenAI](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) than to Bartz’s purchased-book training holding.[^1] Second, the court allowed DMCA CMI claims to proceed on allegations that Anthropic chose a stripping algorithm and distributed lyrics without CMI while concealing its own infringement, distinguishing Tremblay’s third-party-user framing.[^1] -A related later action, Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:26-cv-00880 (N.D. Cal.), appears on CourtListener as filed January 28, 2026. This page does not treat that docket’s allegations as found facts. +Concord II is a different theory: alleged pirated acquisition and distribution of books containing compositions, plus later training and output claims, with individual founder defendants. Naming Amodei and Mann is a pleading choice, not a finding of personal liability. This page does not treat alleged LibGen or PiLiMi downloads as found facts, and it does not record any later stay or merits order in Concord II.[^3][^4] ## Relationships - `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` cites `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`. +- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` cites `SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`. - `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`. - `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. - `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`. +- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`. ## Sources 1. `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`: Order denying motion to dismiss FAC (Oct. 6, 2025). 2. `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`: CourtListener docket for No. 5:24-cv-03811. -3. `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107. +3. `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`: Concord II complaint (Jan. 28, 2026). +4. `SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`: Related-case order (Feb. 18, 2026). +5. `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`: BMG complaint (Mar. 17, 2026). +6. `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`: Sony/Warner publisher complaint (Aug. 28, 2026). + +Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes): + +- `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107. ## Research Debt - Add the original Tennessee complaint, the FAC, and any second amended complaint as operative-pleading sources. - Add the March 26, 2025 dismissal order and any preliminary-injunction ruling from primary PDFs. -- Add No. 5:26-cv-00880 (and any BMG publisher action) from those complaints, not trackers. -- Add Anthropic’s answer and any later merits order. +- Add Anthropic’s answer and any later merits order in Concord I or Concord II. +- The later Sony/Warner publisher action is [CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md); BMG is [CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md). +- Do not treat party joint-status letters as a holding that a stay was granted or denied. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..eda83060 --- /dev/null +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +--- +id: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY +title: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc. +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + predicate: cites + object: SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - subject: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - subject: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc. + +## Summary + +Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal.), is studio copyright litigation over Midjourney’s image (and planned video) generation service. Disney and Universal filed on June 11, 2025, alleging direct and secondary infringement of character works. A later Warner Bros. Discovery action was consolidated into the Disney docket for all purposes including trial. As of the June 15, 2026 discovery order, the case had no fair-use merits ruling. + +## Verified Facts + +- Disney Enterprises, Inc., Marvel Characters, Inc., MVL Film Finance LLC, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, and DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. filed a complaint on June 11, 2025, against Midjourney, Inc. in the Central District of California, No. 2:25-cv-05275.[^1] +- The complaint pleads direct copyright infringement and secondary copyright infringement and demands a jury trial. It alleges that Midjourney’s commercial image service generates unauthorized copies and derivatives of plaintiffs’ characters, including examples such as Darth Vader, Elsa, Lightning McQueen, Buzz Lightyear, Iron Man, and Homer Simpson, and that Midjourney ignored cease-and-desist correspondence.[^1] +- Plaintiffs allege they never authorized Midjourney to reproduce, display, distribute, or make derivatives of the works listed in Exhibits A and B, and they seek damages or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and injunctive relief.[^1] +- Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., DC Comics, Turner Entertainment Co., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., and The Cartoon Network, Inc. filed a second action, No. 2:25-cv-08376. The parties stipulated to consolidate that action into No. 2:25-cv-05275 for all purposes including trial.[^2] +- On June 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin granted in part and denied in part Midjourney’s motion to compel. The order directed plaintiffs to produce documents sufficient to show approval of generative-AI image or video outputs intended for consumers featuring the asserted works, and limited development/training production to that same consumer-facing scope. It otherwise denied the motion, including broader AI-strategy discovery and unused complaint-investigation prompts as work product.[^2] + + +[^1]: `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT` — Complaint (June 11, 2025). Plaintiff allegations and original parties. + +[^2]: `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026` — Order (June 15, 2026). Primary for consolidation, Warner Bros. Discovery parties, and discovery holdings. + +## Historical Context + +Disney is the leading Hollywood character-output case. It is adjacent to [Andersen v. Stability AI](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md), which is an artist class action about training copies and style, but this docket is about recognizable studio characters as outputs of a commercial generator.[^1][^2] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Central District of California. Authority level: complaint plus a magistrate discovery order. No source cited here decides [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) or substantial similarity on the merits.[^1][^2] + +The studios’ theory combines training-copy allegations with output substitution: the product is alleged to function as a “vending machine” for unauthorized character images.[^1] The discovery order treats the studios’ own consumer-facing AI use as potentially relevant while refusing a wide inquiry into internal AI development and unused lawyer-generated prompts.[^2] That is case-management, not a holding that studio AI use defeats infringement. + +This page does not treat complaint exhibits of generated character images as proven copying. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` cites `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`. +- `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. +- `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. + +## Sources + +1. `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`: Disney/Universal complaint (June 11, 2025). +2. `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`: Order on motion to compel (June 15, 2026). + +## Research Debt + +- Add the Warner Bros. original complaint and the November 2025 consolidation order as dedicated sources. +- Add any district-judge review of the June 15, 2026 discovery order from that motion and ruling. +- Add any later fair-use, substantial-similarity, or summary-judgment order. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..e5cd4d93 --- /dev/null +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +--- +id: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB +title: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc. +type: case +status: draft +summary: Open-source developers’ action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights + - open-source-software +sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET +relationships: + - subject: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + predicate: cites + object: SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2024-06-24" +--- + +# Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc. + +## Summary + +Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-06823 (N.D. Cal.), is a class action by anonymous open-source developers against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI entities over GitHub Copilot. On June 24, 2024, Judge Jon S. Tigar dismissed the developers’ DMCA § 1202(b) copyright-management-information claims with prejudice, declined to dismiss breach-of-open-source-license claims, and dismissed unjust-enrichment and punitive-damages requests. Plaintiffs took an interlocutory appeal, Ninth Circuit No. 24-7700, which was argued February 11, 2026. No appellate opinion is recorded in the sources reviewed here. + +## Verified Facts + +- Defendants addressed in the June 24, 2024 order include GitHub, Inc., Microsoft, and OpenAI entities, including OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P. and OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC.[^1] +- The court dismissed plaintiffs’ § 1202(b) claim with prejudice. It declined to dismiss the claim for breach of contract based on alleged open-source license violations against all defendants. It dismissed requests for monetary relief in the form of unjust enrichment and for punitive damages.[^1] +- Plaintiffs opened a Ninth Circuit appeal, No. 24-7700, from the Northern District of California case No. 4:22-cv-06823-JST. The appellate docket records case opening on December 23, 2024, and oral argument on February 11, 2026, in San Francisco.[^2] + + +[^1]: `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024` — Order (June 24, 2024). Primary for surviving and dismissed claims. + +[^2]: `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET` — Ninth Circuit docket No. 24-7700. Primary for appeal number, opening date, and argument date. + +## Historical Context + +Doe is the leading U.S. case about generative coding tools trained on public repositories. It is not a conventional training-is-fair-use book or news case. The live district-court theory after the 2024 order is contract: whether Copilot’s use of licensed code breached the terms under which the code was published. The dismissed DMCA theory is about stripped attribution and license headers, a CMI issue that also appears in image and lyric cases such as [Andersen](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) and [Concord](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md).[^1] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California, with an interlocutory appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Authority level: district-court pleading order plus an appellate docket showing argument but not a decision.[^1][^2] + +The software-freedom stakes are the license-compliance claim and the CMI identicality question on appeal. A ruling that § 1202(b) requires an identical copy would limit DMCA metadata claims against generative outputs that are similar rather than verbatim. The surviving contract claim, if later tried, would test whether public open-source licenses can constrain model training and output independently of copyright fair use. This page does not treat either theory as resolved. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` cites `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`. +- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. +- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. +- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`. + +## Sources + +1. `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`: Order on motions to dismiss (June 24, 2024). +2. `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`: Ninth Circuit docket No. 24-7700. + +## Research Debt + +- Add the original and operative complaints and the January 3, 2024 MTD order as pleading sources. +- Add the September 27, 2024 order certifying interlocutory appeal and staying the district case from that PDF. +- Add any Ninth Circuit opinion in No. 24-7700 when it issues. +- Add Authors Alliance / Samuelson Clinic amicus briefs only if OIR needs the appellate-advocacy record. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8c2ef071 --- /dev/null +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +--- +id: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY +title: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity’s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET + - SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET +relationships: + - subject: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + predicate: cites + object: SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2025-08-21" +--- + +# Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. + +## Summary + +Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-07984 (S.D.N.Y.), is news-publisher copyright and trademark litigation over Perplexity’s generative “answer engine.” Dow Jones and NYP Holdings filed on October 21, 2024. On August 21, 2025, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, denied transfer to the Northern District of California, and allowed claims on ten works registered after the original complaint. The order is not a fair-use holding. A later Times action against Perplexity is pending in the same district. + +## Verified Facts + +- Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and NYP Holdings, Inc. filed a copyright complaint against Perplexity AI, Inc. on October 21, 2024, in the Southern District of New York, No. 1:24-cv-07984.[^2] +- The operative second amended complaint, as described in the court’s August 21, 2025 opinion, alleges copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106 and false designation of origin and trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Perplexity is described as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco that developed an “answer engine.”[^1] +- On August 21, 2025, the court denied in full Perplexity’s motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3), its alternative motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and its Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to ten additional works registered after the original complaint but before an amended complaint.[^1] +- The court held that plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute, including alleged New York office, employees, registration to do business, and marketing contacts, and that venue was therefore proper. It declined to transfer the case.[^1] +- The New York Times Company filed a separate copyright complaint against Perplexity AI, Inc. on December 5, 2025, No. 1:25-cv-10106 (S.D.N.Y.).[^3] + + +[^1]: `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025` — Opinion & Order (Aug. 21, 2025). Primary for claims, jurisdiction, venue, and the ten-works ruling. + +[^2]: `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET` — CourtListener docket. Primary for original filing date. + +[^3]: `SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET` — CourtListener docket for No. 1:25-cv-10106. Primary for Times filing date. + +## Historical Context + +This docket is the leading news-publisher case against a retrieval-augmented answer engine rather than a closed chatbot trained only on a static corpus. It is adjacent to [Times v. OpenAI](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) but names a different defendant and emphasizes real-time crawling plus generated answers.[^1] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York. Authority level: personal-jurisdiction, venue, and § 411(a) pleading order. The court did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) or substantial similarity on the merits.[^1] + +The practical result is that a California-headquartered AI company can be sued in New York on these allegations without a transfer. Output-substitution and RAG-copying theories remain for later stages. The Times Perplexity action is a separate case; this page records its filing, not its merits. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` cites `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`. +- `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` related_to `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`. +- `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. + +## Sources + +1. `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`: Opinion denying motion to dismiss (Aug. 21, 2025). +2. `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`: CourtListener docket for No. 1:24-cv-07984. +3. `SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`: CourtListener docket for No. 1:25-cv-10106. + +## Research Debt + +- Add the second amended Dow Jones complaint as the operative pleading source. +- Add the Times Perplexity complaint and any later MTD order from those PDFs. +- Add Chicago Tribune Co. v. Perplexity, No. 1:25-cv-10094, from that complaint, not secondary summaries. +- Do not treat RAG architecture descriptions in the opinion as proven copying. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md index 1026c400..c3404b0f 100644 --- a/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ tags: sources: - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 relationships: - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI predicate: cites @@ -33,7 +34,12 @@ relationships: object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC sources: - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" decision_date: "2025-11-11" --- @@ -59,9 +65,11 @@ GEMA v. OpenAI, Az. 42 O 14139/24 (LG München I, Nov. 11, 2025), is a German fi [^2]: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025` — Official court press release (Nov. 11, 2025). Primary for summary holdings, dismissed personality-rights claim, and non-final status. +[^3]: `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025` — OLG Hamburg, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025). Primary for the distinct dataset-TDM appellate report. + ## Historical Context -GEMA is a collecting society asserting lyrics, not record-label master rights. The theory—that a model that can emit lyrics on a simple prompt has reproduced those lyrics in its parameters—parallels the U.S. publisher allegations in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), but this is a first-instance merits judgment under the German Copyright Act and the InfoSoc and DSM Directives, not a U.S. fair-use case. +GEMA is a collecting society asserting lyrics, not record-label master rights. The theory—that a model that can emit lyrics on a simple prompt has reproduced those lyrics in its parameters—parallels the U.S. publisher allegations in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), but this is a first-instance merits judgment under the German Copyright Act and the InfoSoc and DSM Directives, not a U.S. fair-use case. [Kneschke v. LAION](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) is a different German TDM case about compiling an open image-text dataset, not memorized commercial-model outputs.[^3] ## Legal Analysis @@ -77,11 +85,13 @@ Comparative use: this is evidence of one EU member-state first-instance approach - `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`. - `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. - `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`. ## Sources 1. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`: LG München I Endurteil, 42 O 14139/24 (Nov. 11, 2025). 2. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`: LG München I Pressemitteilung 11/2025. +3. `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`: Kneschke OLG Hamburg (Dec. 10, 2025). ## Research Debt diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d50189cb --- /dev/null +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +--- +id: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY +title: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. +type: case +status: draft +summary: English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + predicate: cites + object: SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - subject: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + predicate: cites + object: SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 + - subject: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - subject: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - subject: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2025-11-04" +--- + +# Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. + +## Summary + +Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd., [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (4 Nov. 2025), is a first-instance English trial judgment about Stability AI Limited’s Stable Diffusion image-generation models. Getty abandoned its primary UK training, output, and database-right copyright claims before closing. The remaining copyright theory—that the model weights were an “infringing copy” imported or dealt in under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988—failed. Limited historic trade-mark infringement was found from some generated watermarks. The judgment is English law and is not a U.S. fair-use holding. + +A separate U.S. action, Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., No. 25-cv-06891 (N.D. Cal.), was filed August 14, 2025, after Getty dismissed a Delaware predecessor without prejudice. On April 23, 2026, the Northern District of California dismissed Getty’s DMCA false-CMI claim without prejudice and allowed trademark, federal unfair-competition, dilution, and California UCL claims to proceed. Copyright infringement was not before the court on that motion. + +## Verified Facts + +- The English claim, No. IL-2023-000007 in the Intellectual Property List (Chancery Division), was tried before Mrs Justice Joanna Smith in June 2025 and decided on 4 November 2025.[^1] +- Getty alleged primary and secondary copyright infringement, database-right infringement, trade-mark infringement, and passing off against Stability AI Limited concerning Stable Diffusion.[^1] +- Shortly before closing submissions, Getty abandoned its training-and-development copyright claim, substantially abandoned its output copyright claim, and could no longer advance the database-right claim. The court recorded that Getty acknowledged there was no evidence the training had occurred in the United Kingdom.[^1] +- Getty continued a secondary-copyright theory under CDPA sections 22 and 23: that Stability imported, possessed, sold, or distributed an “article,” namely Stable Diffusion, which was an infringing copy because making the model weights in the UK would have infringed. Getty did not allege that the model itself stored copies of the copyright works.[^1] +- The court dismissed the secondary-copyright claim. It held that an “article” may be intangible, but an AI model such as Stable Diffusion that does not store or reproduce any copyright works, and has never done so, is not an “infringing copy,” so there is no infringement under sections 22 and 23.[^1] +- The court found Stability not directly liable for tortious acts arising from release of Stable Diffusion v1.x via CompVis GitHub and Hugging Face pages.[^1] +- Getty succeeded in part on trade-mark claims: limited historic infringement of iStock marks under Trade Marks Act 1994 sections 10(1) and 10(2) for some v1.x watermarks accessed via DreamStudio or the developer platform, and of Getty Images marks under section 10(2) for a v2.x example. Claims as to later models (SD XL and v1.6), section 10(3), and additional copyright damages were dismissed. The court declined to decide passing off.[^1] +- Getty first sued Stability AI in the District of Delaware, No. 23-cv-135-JLH. On August 14, 2025, Getty dismissed that action without prejudice and filed a complaint in the Northern District of California, No. 25-cv-06891, against Stability AI Ltd., Stability AI, Inc., and Stability AI US Services Corporation.[^2][^3] +- The U.S. complaint alleges seven counts: (I) copyright infringement; (II) false copyright management information under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a); (III) trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); (IV) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (V) trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (VI) California unfair competition; and (VII) California trademark dilution.[^3] +- Getty alleges that it has identified over 12 million links to images and associated text from Getty websites in a LAION dataset used to train Stable Diffusion, and that it selected 25,647 registered examples for the copyright claims in that complaint.[^2] +- On April 23, 2026, Judge Trina L. Thompson granted in part and denied in part Stability’s motion to dismiss Counts II through VII. Count II (§ 1202(a)) was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend by May 7, 2026. The court held that Getty had not pleaded the specific intent required by § 1202(a) to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement through false CMI, treating generated watermarks as alleged incidental byproducts of training. Trademark, federal unfair-competition, dilution, and California UCL claims survived.[^3] + + +[^1]: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025` — [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (4 Nov. 2025). Primary for parties, abandoned claims, and English holdings. + +[^2]: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT` — U.S. complaint (Aug. 14, 2025). Primary for N.D. Cal. filing, defendants, alleged dataset copying, and the 25,647 registered examples. + +[^3]: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026` — Order (Apr. 23, 2026). Primary for Delaware dismissal history, the seven counts, and the § 1202(a) / trademark / UCL rulings. + +## Historical Context + +Getty is the leading comparative image-training dispute with both a completed English trial and a live U.S. pleading-stage action. Unlike [Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md), which remains a U.S. artists’ class action about training copies, the English trial never reached a merits holding that training Stable Diffusion on Getty photographs in the UK was copyright infringement, because that claim was abandoned for lack of UK training evidence.[^1] The U.S. complaint’s training theory is still pending; the April 2026 order did not decide it.[^3] + +LAION datasets also appear in [Kneschke v. LAION](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) (German TDM exceptions for dataset compilation) and [In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md). Those cases have different defendants and different legal systems.[^3] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: High Court of England and Wales, plus a pending Northern District of California action. Authority level: English first-instance copyright and trade-mark judgment; U.S. Rule 12(b)(6) order on non-copyright counts. Neither source binds the other forum. The English judgment is not a Court of Justice of the European Union ruling, and the U.S. order is not a [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) holding.[^1][^3] + +The English copyright holding is narrow. The court did not decide that training on copyrighted photographs is lawful. It decided that, on Getty’s remaining theory, model weights that do not store or reproduce the works are not infringing copies for secondary-infringement purposes under the CDPA.[^1] The English trade-mark findings concern generated Getty/iStock watermarks as signs, a different legal interest from copyright in the underlying photographs.[^1] + +The U.S. false-CMI dismissal is also narrow. Stability moved only on Counts II through VII; Count I (copyright infringement) was not dismissed. The court required double scienter under § 1202(a) and treated incidental watermark generation as insufficient intent at that pleading.[^3] Trademark and UCL survival is a likelihood-of-confusion and borrowing-statute pleading result, not a finding that outputs infringe. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` cites `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`. +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` cites `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`. +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`. + +## Sources + +1. `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`: Getty Images v. Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch). +2. `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`: U.S. complaint (Aug. 14, 2025). +3. `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`: Order on motion to dismiss (Apr. 23, 2026). + +## Research Debt + +- Add [2025] EWHC 3343 (Ch) (permission to appeal) and any Court of Appeal decision from those PDFs. +- Add any first amended U.S. complaint after the May 7, 2026 deadline, and any later order on Count I. +- Do not treat abandoned UK training claims as a holding that training is lawful. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..01295124 --- /dev/null +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +--- +id: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI +title: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + predicate: cites + object: SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2025-09-11" +--- + +# In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation + +## Summary + +In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Master File No. 5:23-cv-03440 (N.D. Cal.), consolidates putative class actions by authors and visual artists alleging that Google LLC trained generative models on copyrighted works. On September 11, 2025, Judge Eumi K. Lee dismissed with prejudice direct-infringement claims as to specified models that the complaint did not factually connect to the training datasets, and dismissed vicarious claims against Alphabet Inc. Claims concerning Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related large-language and Imagen models were not dismissed on that ground. The order is not a fair-use holding. + +## Verified Facts + +- The consolidated action originated as Leovy v. Google LLC, No. 23-cv-03440, filed July 11, 2023, and Zhang v. Google LLC, No. 24-cv-02531, filed April 26, 2024, on behalf of visual artists including photographers, cartoonists, and illustrators. After reassignment, the court consolidated the cases for all trial and pretrial proceedings under Master File No. 23-cv-03440-EKL, captioned In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation.[^1] +- The consolidated amended complaint alleged that Google and Alphabet “infringed millions of registered copyrighted works” to build and train Google’s generative AI models. Plaintiffs alleged training of large language models including PaLM, GLaM, LaMDA, Bard, and Gemini on overlapping datasets including Infiniset/C4, and training of Imagen text-to-image models on LAION-400M and LAION-5B.[^1] +- On September 11, 2025, the court granted Google’s motion to dismiss in part, without leave to amend as to the dismissed claims. Direct-infringement claims relating to Codey, Chirp, Veo, MedLM, LearnLM, SecLM, Gemma, CodeGemma, RecurrentGemma, and PaliGemma were dismissed with prejudice. Vicarious copyright-infringement claims against Alphabet were dismissed with prejudice.[^1] +- The court found that the complaint alleged training of PaLM, GLaM, LaMDA, Bard, Gemini, and Imagen on datasets said to include copyrighted works, and it rejected Google’s attempt to dismiss named plaintiff Sarah Andersen’s claims at the pleading stage on registration/publication grounds as too fact-bound.[^1] +- Plaintiffs were ordered to file a second amended consolidated complaint within 14 days limited to amending the class definition consistent with a prior order striking class allegations, without adding new claims, parties, or other allegations.[^1] + + +[^1]: `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025` — Order (Sept. 11, 2025). Primary for history, alleged theories, and holdings. + +## Historical Context + +This is the leading U.S. class action against Google’s generative products. Image-training allegations overlap the LAION datasets also at issue in [Andersen v. Stability AI](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) and [Kneschke v. LAION](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md), but those cases have different defendants and different legal systems.[^1] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: Rule 12(b)(6) order. The court did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md). It required model-by-model factual allegations connecting training datasets to copyrighted works, and it refused to treat ordinary parent-subsidiary control as vicarious copyright liability.[^1] + +This page does not treat later class-certification or discovery orders as merits holdings. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` cites `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`. +- `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. +- `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` related_to `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`. +- `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. + +## Sources + +1. `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`: Order granting motion to dismiss in part (Sept. 11, 2025). + +## Research Debt + +- Add the second amended consolidated complaint and any class-certification order from those filings. +- Add later discovery orders only for scheduling facts that OIR needs. +- Named plaintiff overlap with Andersen is noted in the 2025 order; do not merge the dockets. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2ba25e5c --- /dev/null +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +--- +id: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI +title: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation +type: case +status: draft +summary: Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + predicate: cites + object: SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + sources: + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + predicate: cites + object: SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + sources: + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2025-10-27" +--- + +# In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation + +## Summary + +In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, MDL No. 3143 (S.D.N.Y.), is the centralized pretrial docket for copyright actions alleging that OpenAI and Microsoft used copyrighted works to train large language models. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred out-of-district cases to Judge Sidney H. Stein. On October 27, 2025, the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class plaintiffs’ direct-infringement claim based on ChatGPT outputs. The news-publisher track remains documented on [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp.](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md). + +## Verified Facts + +- In MDL No. 3143, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found that twelve actions in the Northern District of California and the Southern District of New York shared factual questions about OpenAI and Microsoft training large language models such as GPT-4 and generating outputs through products including ChatGPT and Bing Chat/Copilot, and it transferred the out-of-district actions to the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Sidney H. Stein.[^1] +- Schedule A to the transfer order listed, among others, Tremblay, Silverman, Chabon, and Millette (N.D. Cal.); Authors Guild, Alter, Basbanes, Raw Story, The Intercept, Daily News, and Center for Investigative Reporting (S.D.N.Y.); and The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 1:23-cv-11195.[^1] +- The Panel described differences among author class claims (books used as training input), news claims (training plus alleged verbatim or detailed output summaries), DMCA copyright-management-information claims that do not allege copyright infringement, and a YouTube-transcript class (Millette), but held those differences did not prevent centralization.[^1] +- On October 27, 2025, in 25-md-3143, Judge Stein denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint’s output-based direct-infringement claim in putative class actions including Authors Guild, No. 23-cv-8292. The court held that the complaint adequately stated a prima facie claim because some alleged ChatGPT outputs, including a detailed summary of George R.R. Martin’s *A Game of Thrones* and an alternate-sequel outline using protected setting, plot, and characters, could be found substantially similar by a reasonable jury applying the more discerning observer test.[^2] +- The October 27, 2025 opinion states that it makes no conclusions regarding fair use.[^2] + + +[^1]: `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143` — JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143). Primary for centralization and Schedule A. + +[^2]: `SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025` — Opinion & Order (Oct. 27, 2025). Primary for output-claim pleading holding. + +## Historical Context + +The MDL gathers the book-author class actions that began as Authors Guild, Tremblay, Silverman, and related suits, together with news and DMCA cases already before Judge Stein. It is a pretrial coordination device, not a single merits judgment that training is or is not fair use.[^1][^2] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: JPML centralization into the Southern District of New York. Authority level: transfer order plus a Rule 12(b)(6) opinion on output similarity. The October 2025 order is important for what it did not do: it refused to end output claims as a matter of law at the pleading stage, while expressly reserving [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md).[^2] Training-input claims were not the subject of that motion. + +News-publisher pleading orders remain on the Times page. This page does not treat alleged ChatGPT summaries as proven copying. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` cites `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`. +- `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` cites `SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`. +- `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`. +- `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. + +## Sources + +1. `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`: JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. +2. `SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`: Opinion denying motion to dismiss output claims (Oct. 27, 2025). + +## Research Debt + +- Replace the law-firm hosted October 27, 2025 opinion with a RECAP/PACER original when available. +- Add the consolidated class action complaint (Baldacci et al.) as the operative author pleading. +- Add later summary-judgment or discovery orders on output logs from those PDFs. +- Document tag-along actions filed after Schedule A only from later JPML or docket entries. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9d902ed6 --- /dev/null +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +--- +id: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION +title: Kneschke v. LAION e.V. +type: case +status: draft +summary: German photographer’s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + predicate: cites + object: SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - subject: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - subject: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 + - subject: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2024-09-27" +--- + +# Kneschke v. LAION e.V. + +## Summary + +Kneschke v. LAION e.V., Az. 310 O 227/23 (LG Hamburg, Sept. 27, 2024), aff’d 5 U 104/24 (OLG Hamburg, Dec. 10, 2025), is a German copyright action by photographer Robert Kneschke against the nonprofit LAION over downloading his photograph from a stock-photo site to compile an image-text dataset used for AI training. The Regional Court dismissed the claim, holding the reproduction was covered by the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception. The Higher Regional Court dismissed the appeal and, as reported, also applied the general TDM exception. The decisions are German law implementing the DSM Directive’s TDM exceptions; they are not U.S. fair-use holdings and do not decide commercial model training by for-profit labs. + +## Verified Facts + +- On September 27, 2024, Landgericht Hamburg, 10. Zivilkammer, entered judgment in 310 O 227/23 dismissing the photographer’s complaint (Tenor: “Die Klage wird abgewiesen.”).[^1] +- The court found that LAION reproduced the photograph by downloading it, thereby interfering with the photographer’s exploitation rights, but that the reproduction was covered by the statutory TDM exception for scientific research. It treated the general commercial TDM exception as doubtful on the facts and unnecessary to decide because the research exception applied.[^1] +- LAION’s dataset is described as a publicly available table of hyperlinks to images plus text descriptions (image-text pairs) that can be used to train generative models; the disputed act was a download to compare image content with an existing description.[^1] +- On December 10, 2025, the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court, 5 U 104/24, dismissed the photographer’s appeal from the September 27, 2024 judgment. The court’s reported holding is that LAION’s use was covered by both § 44b UrhG (general TDM) and § 60d UrhG (research TDM), including that the stock-site reservation of use did not meet the machine-readability requirement for an effective opt-out under § 44b(3).[^2] + + +[^1]: `SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024` — LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024). Primary for tenor and first-instance holdings. + +[^2]: `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025` — OLG Hamburg decision report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025). Primary for appellate caption and reported holdings. + +## Historical Context + +Kneschke is the leading German dataset-compilation case. It is distinct from [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md), which treated memorized lyrics in a commercial LLM as reproductions outside TDM, and from [Getty Images v. Stability AI](CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md), an English trial about model weights as infringing copies. LAION is a nonprofit dataset publisher, not a commercial image-generator operator. + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Landgericht Hamburg, affirmed by OLG Hamburg. Authority level: German first- and second-instance copyright judgments applying §§ 44b and 60d UrhG / Arts. 3–4 of the DSM Directive. They do not bind U.S. courts and are not Court of Justice of the European Union rulings.[^1][^2] + +The first-instance court decided only the download used to build the dataset, not whether later commercial training of a generative model is TDM.[^1] The appellate report adds that both TDM exceptions applied and that a natural-language website reservation was not an effective machine-readable opt-out on those facts.[^2] BGH review, if sought, is outside the sources cited here. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` cites `SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`. +- `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` related_to `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`. +- `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`. +- `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. + +## Sources + +1. `SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`: LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024). +2. `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`: OLG Hamburg, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025). + +## Research Debt + +- Replace the rewis reprint with an official LG PDF or openJur citation when available. +- Add the official OLG Hamburg judgment PDF and any BGH caption (reported elsewhere as I ZR 281/25) from those texts. +- Do not treat this as a holding that commercial generative-model training is lawful TDM. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md index d7679502..774b2de0 100644 --- a/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ sources: - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025 - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026 + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET relationships: - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI predicate: cites @@ -29,7 +31,17 @@ relationships: object: STAT-USC-107 sources: - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025 -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + sources: + - SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET +last_verified: "2026-09-02" decision_date: "2025-04-04" --- @@ -59,9 +71,13 @@ The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.), [^3]: `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026` — Order (Aug. 6, 2026). Primary district-court authority on later contributory-claim dismissal. +[^4]: `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143` — JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. Primary for centralization of the Times action. + +[^5]: `SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET` — CourtListener docket for No. 1:25-cv-10106. Primary for the later Times filing against Perplexity. + ## Historical Context -The Times action is the highest-profile news-publisher suit in the generative-AI copyright wave. Unlike [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), which reached summary judgment on book-training fair use, this docket remained at pleadings and discovery as of the August 2026 order, with output substitution and training still live issues for remaining claims.[^2][^3] +The Times action is the highest-profile news-publisher suit in the generative-AI copyright wave. Unlike [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), which reached summary judgment on book-training fair use, this docket remained at pleadings and discovery as of the August 2026 order, with output substitution and training still live issues for remaining claims.[^2][^3] The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action, among others, into [In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md).[^4] A later Times complaint against Perplexity AI is recorded on [Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.](CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md).[^5] ## Legal Analysis @@ -76,17 +92,21 @@ This page does not treat the complaint’s exhibits of allegedly memorized artic - `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` cites `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`. - `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. - `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `STAT-USC-107`. +- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`. +- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`. ## Sources 1. `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`: Times complaint (Dec. 27, 2023). 2. `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`: Opinion on motions to dismiss (Apr. 4, 2025). 3. `SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`: Order on Rule 12(c) contributory claims (Aug. 6, 2026). +4. `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`: JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. +5. `SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`: CourtListener docket for Times v. Perplexity, No. 1:25-cv-10106. ## Research Debt - Add the first amended Times complaint (ECF 170) as the operative pleading source. -- Document consolidation/MDL captioning (RECAP numbers differ across related dockets). +- Document consolidation/MDL captioning (RECAP numbers differ across related dockets). The MDL transfer and author-class output claims are now [CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI](CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md). - Add any summary-judgment or discovery orders on output logs after August 2026. - Create a dedicated CASE page for Cox v. Sony (146 S. Ct. 959 (2026)) if OIR takes on secondary copyright liability more broadly. -- Getty Images v. Stability AI, Authors Guild/OpenAI book cases, and Disney/Midjourney remain separate research-debt case pages. +- The Times action against Perplexity is recorded on [CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY](CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md); add that complaint and any later order from those PDFs. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md b/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..11d355e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +--- +id: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC +title: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: cites + object: SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC + +## Summary + +Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:26-cv-09217 (N.D. Cal.), is a music-publisher copyright action filed August 28, 2026, against Anthropic PBC, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann. Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell affiliates allege torrenting of books containing lyrics and sheet music, scraping and other copying of compositions to train Claude, output reproduction, and DMCA copyright-management-information removal. The complaint is allegations only; no merits ruling is recorded in the source reviewed here. + +## Verified Facts + +- On August 28, 2026, Sony Music Publishing affiliates and Warner Chappell Music affiliates filed a complaint in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, No. 5:26-cv-09217, against Anthropic PBC, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann.[^1] +- Plaintiffs allege they own or control musical compositions including lyrics and sheet music, and that defendants torrented, scraped, and downloaded those works to develop Claude, including by torrenting books from Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror that contained lyrics and sheet music.[^1] +- The complaint pleads four counts: (I) direct copyright infringement by torrenting against all defendants; (II) contributory infringement by torrenting against Amodei and Mann; (III) direct copyright infringement against Anthropic, including scraping, downloading third-party datasets, destructive scanning, training, and generating verbatim or derivative lyric outputs; and (IV) removal or alteration of copyright management information against Anthropic under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b).[^1] +- Plaintiffs demand a jury trial and seek, among other relief, statutory damages up to $150,000 per work under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), statutory damages up to $25,000 per CMI violation under § 1203(c)(3)(B), injunctive relief, destruction of infringing copies, and an accounting of training data.[^1] +- The complaint cites [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) for the description of Anthropic’s alleged torrenting as piracy at scale, and it refers to the earlier publisher action [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and a later Concord docket, No. 5:26-cv-00880.[^1] + + +[^1]: `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026` — Complaint (Aug. 28, 2026). Primary for parties, docket number, counts, and alleged facts. + +## Historical Context + +This filing brings Sony and Warner publishing catalogs into the same Northern District of California lyric-and-piracy cluster already occupied by Concord/UMG publishers and by Bartz’s book-piracy settlement. It is a composition (lyrics/sheet music) case, not a sound-recording case against a music generator such as [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) or [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md).[^1] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: complaint only. The pleading does not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md). Plaintiffs frame the dispute around alleged pirated acquisition and regurgitation, the same distinction Bartz drew between training copies and a pirated library, but this court has not applied that distinction to these publishers’ works.[^1] + +Naming Amodei and Mann as individual torrenting defendants is a different party structure from Concord’s company-only caption in the sources on that page. Treat that as a pleading choice, not a finding of personal liability. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` cites `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`. +- `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`. +- `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`. + +## Sources + +1. `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`: Sony/Warner publisher complaint (Aug. 28, 2026). + +## Research Debt + +- Replace the journalist-hosted PDF with a RECAP/PACER original when available. +- Add Anthropic’s response, any related-case order, and any motion to dismiss. +- Concord II is now on [CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md); BMG is [CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md). diff --git a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md index c3b76835..e80569d5 100644 --- a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md +++ b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ id: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT title: Copyright and Generative AI type: topic status: draft -summary: U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims. +summary: U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation. tags: - copyright - artificial-intelligence @@ -23,6 +23,23 @@ sources: - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026 + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT - SRC-USC-17-107-LII - SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO relationships: @@ -111,7 +128,57 @@ relationships: object: PERSON-KIT-WALSH sources: - SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" --- # Copyright and Generative AI @@ -131,8 +198,14 @@ U.S. copyright law is being applied to generative AI along two tracks. Outputs: - In [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md), the Northern District of California held that training Claude on books was transformative fair use but that a permanent library of pirated copies was not excused as fair use; a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims received final approval on July 20, 2026.[^6][^7] - In [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), the Northern District of California granted Meta summary judgment on fair use for training Llama on thirteen authors’ books on that record, while warning that market-dilution evidence could change the result in other cases and leaving torrenting-distribution claims open.[^8] - In [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp.](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md), the Southern District of New York in April 2025 largely denied motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft; an August 2026 order later dismissed material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement.[^9] +- [In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) centralized author and publisher actions in MDL No. 3143. On October 27, 2025, the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs, holding some alleged summaries and sequel outlines could be substantially similar, without deciding fair use.[^22][^23] +- In [Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.](CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md), the Southern District of New York on August 21, 2025 denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss a news-publisher copyright and trademark action over its answer engine for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; a later Times action against Perplexity was filed in the same district.[^24] - In [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md), game studios seek a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters are not copyrightable. See [Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters](TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md).[^10] -- Music-industry suits are collected in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): labels allege unlicensed copying of sound recordings to train [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md); publishers allege lyric copying in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md); and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) is a non-final German first-instance judgment that memorized lyrics in models 4 and 4o were unauthorized reproductions.[^11][^12][^13][^14] +- Music-industry suits are collected in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): labels allege unlicensed copying of sound recordings to train [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md); publishers allege lyric copying in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (including a later torrenting complaint, Concord II), [BMG v. Anthropic](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md), and the later [Sony/Warner publisher action against Anthropic](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md); and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) is a non-final German first-instance judgment that memorized lyrics in models 4 and 4o were unauthorized reproductions.[^11][^12][^13][^14][^15][^25][^26] +- Image-generator suits now have dedicated pages. [Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) is a pending U.S. artists’ class action in which Copyright Act claims survived dismissal and DMCA claims did not.[^16] [Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.](CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) is pending studio litigation over alleged character outputs, later consolidated with a Warner Bros. Discovery action.[^17][^18] [Getty Images v. Stability AI](CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) is an English trial judgment that dismissed Getty’s remaining secondary-copyright theory after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims; a later Northern District of California action dismissed a false-CMI claim without prejudice while trademark and UCL claims survived.[^19][^27][^28] +- [Kneschke v. LAION](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) is a German photographer’s claim against a nonprofit dataset publisher: Landgericht Hamburg dismissed the complaint, applying the scientific-research TDM exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception as reported.[^29][^30] +- [In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) is a Northern District of California putative class action; a September 11, 2025 order dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims.[^31] +- [Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.](CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) is the leading open-source Copilot action: the district court dismissed DMCA § 1202(b) claims with prejudice and allowed open-source-license contract claims; a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued February 11, 2026.[^20][^21] [^1]: `SRC-USC-17-107-LII` — 17 U.S.C. § 107. Primary statutory authority. @@ -163,6 +236,40 @@ U.S. copyright law is being applied to generative AI along two tracks. Outputs: [^14]: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025` — LG München I Nov. 11, 2025. Non-final first-instance judgment. +[^15]: `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026` — N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026. Pending; plaintiff allegations. + +[^16]: `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024` — N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024. Pleading-stage order. + +[^17]: `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT` — C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025. Pending; plaintiff allegations. + +[^18]: `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026` — C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026. Discovery order; records consolidation. + +[^19]: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025` — [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (4 Nov. 2025). English first-instance judgment. + +[^20]: `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024` — N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024. Pleading-stage order. + +[^21]: `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET` — 9th Cir. No. 24-7700. Appellate docket; argued Feb. 11, 2026. + +[^22]: `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143` — JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. + +[^23]: `SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025` — S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025. Pleading-stage authority on author-class outputs. + +[^24]: `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025` — S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025. Jurisdiction, venue, and later-registered works. + +[^25]: `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT` — N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026. Pending; plaintiff allegations. + +[^26]: `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT` — N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026. Pending; plaintiff allegations. + +[^27]: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT` — N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025. Pending; plaintiff allegations. + +[^28]: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026` — N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026. Pleading-stage order on CMI, trademark, and UCL. + +[^29]: `SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024` — LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024). + +[^30]: `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025` — OLG Hamburg, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025). Appellate report. + +[^31]: `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025` — N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025. Pleading-stage order. + ## Historical Context Software copyright already had a fair-use landmark in [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md), which treated copying of Java API declaring code as transformative fair use. Generative-AI cases cite Google v. Oracle but present a different use: ingesting expressive works at scale to produce competing text, images, or music. No U.S. court of appeals had, as of the sources reviewed here, issued a merits holding that LLM training on copyrighted books is or is not fair use. @@ -173,7 +280,7 @@ Three questions should be kept separate. **Authorship of outputs.** Thaler and Copyright Office practice answer the easy case: a work with no human author cannot be registered or owned as copyrighted expression.[^2][^3][^4] Mixed works remain a case-by-case inquiry. Spyder tests whether viral meme characters created with image generators fall on the uncopyrightable side of that line.[^10] -**Copying for training (inputs).** Fair use under § 107 is fact-specific.[^1] Ross involved a substitute legal-research tool, not a generative writer.[^5] Bartz treated generative training as transformative but piracy-for-library as infringement.[^6] Kadrey treated generative training as fair use on a thin market-harm record while saying other records may come out the other way.[^8] Publisher cases such as the Times action add output-substitution and secondary-liability theories that book-training summary judgments did not decide.[^9] Music cases add a further split: sound-recording training claims against Suno and Udio remain without a U.S. fair-use holding, while GEMA is a non-final German holding that lyric memorization is reproduction outside the TDM exception.[^11][^12][^14] +**Copying for training (inputs).** Fair use under § 107 is fact-specific.[^1] Ross involved a substitute legal-research tool, not a generative writer.[^5] Bartz treated generative training as transformative but piracy-for-library as infringement.[^6] Kadrey treated generative training as fair use on a thin market-harm record while saying other records may come out the other way.[^8] Publisher cases such as the Times action add output-substitution and secondary-liability theories that book-training summary judgments did not decide.[^9] The OpenAI MDL’s October 2025 order adds that alleged ChatGPT summaries of books can survive a substantial-similarity challenge at the pleading stage, still without a fair-use holding.[^23] Perplexity is a retrieval-augmented answer-engine docket, not a closed-corpus training fair-use ruling.[^24] Image cases add a further split: Andersen’s training-copy claims are pending in the United States,[^16] Getty’s English trial never reached a UK-training holding because that claim was abandoned and the remaining model-as-infringing-copy theory failed,[^19] and Getty’s U.S. action remains at pleadings after a false-CMI dismissal.[^28] Kneschke is German TDM law about downloading an image to compile an open dataset, not a holding that commercial model training is always lawful.[^29][^30] Google’s generative-AI class action shows courts requiring model-by-model factual allegations connecting datasets to works.[^31] Music cases add another split: sound-recording training claims against Suno and Udio remain without a U.S. fair-use holding, while GEMA is a non-final German holding that lyric memorization is reproduction outside the TDM exception.[^11][^12][^14] Open-source code is on a different track in Doe: DMCA CMI claims were dismissed and license-contract claims remain, with the CMI identicality question in the Ninth Circuit.[^20][^21] **Remedies and settlements.** Bartz’s $1.5 billion settlement prices past pirated acquisition for a defined class; it does not freeze the fair-use doctrine or release output claims.[^7] @@ -198,6 +305,16 @@ Non-copyright AI suits (chatbot product liability, defamation, privacy) are coll - `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`. - `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`. - `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `PERSON-KIT-WALSH`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`. ## Sources @@ -215,6 +332,23 @@ Non-copyright AI suits (chatbot product liability, defamation, privacy) are coll 12. `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`: UMG v. Udio complaint (2024). 13. `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`: Concord v. Anthropic MTD denial (2025). 14. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`: GEMA v. OpenAI, LG München I (2025). +15. `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`: Sony/Warner publisher complaint against Anthropic (2026). +16. `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`: Andersen MTD order (2024). +17. `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`: Disney/Universal complaint (2025). +18. `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`: Disney discovery order (2026). +19. `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`: Getty Images v. Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch). +20. `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`: Doe v. GitHub MTD order (2024). +21. `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`: Doe v. GitHub Ninth Circuit docket (24-7700). +22. `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`: JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. +23. `SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`: In re OpenAI output-claim MTD opinion (2025). +24. `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`: Dow Jones v. Perplexity MTD opinion (2025). +25. `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`: Concord II complaint (2026). +26. `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`: BMG v. Anthropic complaint (2026). +27. `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`: Getty U.S. complaint (2025). +28. `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`: Getty U.S. MTD order (2026). +29. `SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`: Kneschke LG Hamburg (2024). +30. `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`: Kneschke OLG Hamburg (2025). +31. `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`: In re Google Generative AI MTD order (2025). Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes): @@ -222,8 +356,8 @@ Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes): ## Research Debt -- Add Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK High Court 2025 and N.D. Cal. U.S. action) with primary judgments. -- Add Andersen v. Stability AI / artists’ class actions from complaints and orders. - Add Copyright Office Part 3 (training) when a final version is cited from copyright.gov rather than secondary summaries. - Document U.S. Copyright Office registration examples beyond Thaler (Zarya of the Dawn; later granted mixed-work registrations). - Music-generator and lyric cases now have dedicated pages; add later U.S. fair-use orders and any OLG München appeal in GEMA there. +- Add any Ninth Circuit opinion in Doe v. GitHub. +- Add any BGH judgment in Kneschke from that official text. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md index 0655a46a..0b04b938 100644 --- a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md +++ b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ id: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION title: AI Litigation Landscape type: topic status: draft -summary: Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. +summary: Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. tags: - artificial-intelligence - copyright @@ -26,6 +26,22 @@ sources: - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026 + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT relationships: - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION predicate: related_to @@ -108,14 +124,64 @@ relationships: sources: - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025 notes: Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil product liability, not a criminal developer prosecution. -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" --- # AI Litigation Landscape ## Summary -Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented here fall into four clusters: (1) copyright in training data and model outputs, including news, books, and music, (2) copyright and trademark claims over AI-generated viral characters, (3) product-liability and speech defenses when chatbot products are alleged to have harmed users, and (4) one comparative German first-instance lyric judgment. This page is an inventory, not a prediction of outcomes. +Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented here fall into five clusters: (1) copyright in training data and model outputs, including news, books, music, images, datasets, and code, (2) copyright and trademark claims over AI-generated viral characters, (3) product-liability and speech defenses when chatbot products are alleged to have harmed users, (4) comparative German and English judgments, and (5) pending publisher and class actions that have not reached fair-use merits. This page is an inventory, not a prediction of outcomes. ## Verified Facts @@ -125,9 +191,14 @@ Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented - [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) held that training Claude on books was transformative fair use but that a pirated permanent library was not; a $1.5 billion class settlement of piracy claims was finally approved July 20, 2026.[^4][^5] - [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025) granted Meta fair-use summary judgment on Llama training as to thirteen authors on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.[^6] - [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp.](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) (S.D.N.Y.) survived most of an April 4, 2025 motion to dismiss; an August 6, 2026 order dismissed material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement.[^7][^8] +- [In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) (MDL No. 3143, S.D.N.Y.) centralized author and publisher actions; on October 27, 2025, the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class output-infringement claims without deciding fair use.[^22][^23] +- [Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.](CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) (S.D.N.Y.) survived an August 21, 2025 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; a related Times action against Perplexity was later filed in the same district.[^24] - [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 26, 2025) seeks a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” characters used in Steal a Brainrot are not copyrightable. See [Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters](TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md).[^9] - [Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.](CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) allowed most wrongful-death and product-liability claims against a chatbot company and Google to proceed and declined, at the pleading stage, to treat LLM output as protected speech.[^10] -- Music copyright dockets are inventoried in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [UMG v. Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [UMG v. Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings; partial dismissals; no U.S. fair-use holding), [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (lyrics; secondary and DMCA claims survive dismissal), and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) (non-final German first-instance lyric judgment).[^11][^12][^13][^14] +- Music copyright dockets are inventoried in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [UMG v. Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [UMG v. Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings; partial dismissals; no U.S. fair-use holding), [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (lyrics; secondary and DMCA claims survive dismissal; Concord II alleges torrenting), [BMG v. Anthropic](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (later publisher complaint; allegations only), [Sony Music Publishing v. Anthropic](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (later publisher complaint naming founders; allegations only), and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) (non-final German first-instance lyric judgment).[^11][^12][^13][^14][^15][^25][^26] +- Image-generator dockets: [Andersen v. Stability AI](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) (artists’ class action; Copyright Act claims survive dismissal; DMCA dismissed), [Disney v. Midjourney](CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) (studio character outputs; consolidated with Warner Bros. Discovery; discovery ongoing), and [Getty Images v. Stability AI](CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) (English trial; secondary copyright dismissed after training claims were abandoned; U.S. action pending after a false-CMI dismissal).[^16][^17][^18][^19][^27] +- Dataset and Google models: [Kneschke v. LAION](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) (German TDM exceptions for compiling an open image-text dataset) and [In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) (some models dismissed with prejudice; Bard/Gemini/Imagen claims remain).[^28][^29][^30] +- Open-source code: [Doe 1 v. GitHub](CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) (Copilot; DMCA § 1202(b) dismissed with prejudice; license-contract claims survived; Ninth Circuit argument February 11, 2026).[^20][^21] [^1]: `SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC` — 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025). @@ -158,6 +229,38 @@ Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented [^14]: `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025` — LG München I Nov. 11, 2025. Not final. +[^15]: `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026` — N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026. Pending; allegations. + +[^16]: `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024` — N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024. + +[^17]: `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT` — C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025. Pending. + +[^18]: `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026` — C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026. + +[^19]: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025` — [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch). + +[^20]: `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024` — N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024. + +[^21]: `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET` — 9th Cir. No. 24-7700. + +[^22]: `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143` — JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. + +[^23]: `SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025` — S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025. + +[^24]: `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025` — S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025. + +[^25]: `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT` — N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026. Pending; allegations. + +[^26]: `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT` — N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026. Pending; allegations. + +[^27]: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026` — N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026. + +[^28]: `SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024` — LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024). + +[^29]: `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025` — OLG Hamburg, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025). + +[^30]: `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025` — N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025. + ## Case map | Cluster | Leading OIR page | What is actually decided (as of sources cited) | @@ -167,10 +270,20 @@ Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented | Training market harm | [Kadrey](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) | Fair use on this record; dilution theory undeveloped. | | Competing research AI | [Ross](CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) | Not fair use; tool was not generative. | | News outputs | [Times v. OpenAI](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) | Claims largely survive dismissal; some secondary theories dismissed. | +| Author-class outputs (MDL) | [In re OpenAI](CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) | Output claims survive 12(b)(6); no fair use. | +| Answer-engine news | [Dow Jones v. Perplexity](CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) | Jurisdiction/venue survive; no fair-use ruling. | | Meme-character ownership | [Spyder](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) | Pending declaration action. | | Music masters | [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) / [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) | Pending; partial dismissals; no U.S. fair-use holding. | -| Music lyrics (U.S.) | [Concord](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Secondary and CMI claims survive 12(b)(6). | +| Music lyrics (U.S.) | [Concord](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Secondary and CMI claims survive 12(b)(6); Concord II alleges torrenting. | +| Music lyrics (BMG) | [BMG v. Anthropic](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Complaint filed Mar. 17, 2026; no merits ruling. | | Music lyrics (DE) | [GEMA](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) | First-instance liability; not final. | +| Music lyrics (Sony/Warner) | [Sony v. Anthropic](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Complaint filed Aug. 28, 2026; no merits ruling. | +| Visual-artist training | [Andersen](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) | Copyright claims survive 12(b)(6); DMCA out. | +| Studio character outputs | [Disney v. Midjourney](CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) | Pending; consolidated; discovery order 2026. | +| Image model (UK / U.S.) | [Getty](CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) | UK: secondary copyright fails; limited TM; training claims abandoned. U.S.: false CMI out w/o prejudice; TM/UCL survive. | +| Dataset TDM (DE) | [Kneschke](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) | Download for research/general TDM; opt-out not machine-readable as reported. | +| Google generative models | [In re Google Gen. AI](CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) | Some models out with prejudice; Bard/Gemini/Imagen remain. | +| Open-source Copilot | [Doe v. GitHub](CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) | DMCA CMI dismissed; contract claims live; 9th Cir. argued. | | Chatbot harm | [Garcia](CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) | Design-defect claims proceed; speech defense not established at 12(b)(6). | ## Legal Analysis @@ -199,6 +312,16 @@ Criminal and sanctions cases involving software authors remain on [Documented Pr - `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`. - `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`. - `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`. ## Sources @@ -216,11 +339,28 @@ Criminal and sanctions cases involving software authors remain on [Documented Pr 12. `SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`: UMG v. Udio complaint (2024). 13. `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`: Concord MTD denial (2025). 14. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`: GEMA v. OpenAI (2025). +15. `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`: Sony/Warner publisher complaint (2026). +16. `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`: Andersen MTD order (2024). +17. `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`: Disney complaint (2025). +18. `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`: Disney discovery order (2026). +19. `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`: Getty UK judgment (2025). +20. `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`: Doe v. GitHub MTD order (2024). +21. `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`: Doe Ninth Circuit docket. +22. `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`: JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. +23. `SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`: In re OpenAI output-claim MTD opinion (2025). +24. `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`: Dow Jones v. Perplexity MTD opinion (2025). +25. `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`: Concord II complaint (2026). +26. `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`: BMG v. Anthropic complaint (2026). +27. `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`: Getty U.S. MTD order (2026). +28. `SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`: Kneschke LG Hamburg (2024). +29. `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`: Kneschke OLG Hamburg (2025). +30. `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`: In re Google Generative AI MTD order (2025). ## Research Debt - Add Walters v. OpenAI (defamation / ChatGPT hallucinations) with a primary docket and any opinion. -- Add Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK and U.S.) from judgments. - Add EU AI Act public-enforcement matters only with official documents. - Verify Garcia docket for any 2026 settlement or judgment before stating the case is resolved. - Defamation, biometric-privacy, and employment AI cases are not yet in this inventory. +- Add any Ninth Circuit opinion in Doe v. GitHub. +- Add Chicago Tribune and Britannica Perplexity complaints from those PDFs. diff --git a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md index 7cb8fef8..9bb7c704 100644 --- a/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md +++ b/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ id: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT title: Music Copyright and Generative AI type: topic status: draft -summary: Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. +summary: Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. tags: - copyright - artificial-intelligence @@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ sources: - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025 + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT + - SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT - SRC-USC-17-107-LII relationships: - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT @@ -56,21 +60,33 @@ relationships: object: STAT-USC-107 sources: - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" --- # Music Copyright and Generative AI ## Summary -Generative-AI music disputes split along the same two copyright interests the industry has always separated: sound recordings (the recorded performance) and musical compositions (the song, including lyrics). U.S. major labels sued Suno and Udio over alleged unlicensed copying of masters. U.S. publishers sued Anthropic over lyrics in Claude. A German first-instance court held OpenAI liable for memorizing and outputting nine German lyrics. As of the sources reviewed here, no U.S. court had issued a fair-use merits ruling on training a generative music model. +Generative-AI music disputes split along the same two copyright interests the industry has always separated: sound recordings (the recorded performance) and musical compositions (the song, including lyrics). U.S. major labels sued Suno and Udio over alleged unlicensed copying of masters. U.S. publishers sued Anthropic over lyrics in Claude, including Concord/UMG publishers (Concord I and Concord II), BMG, and a later Sony/Warner complaint. A German first-instance court held OpenAI liable for memorizing and outputting nine German lyrics. As of the sources reviewed here, no U.S. court had issued a fair-use merits ruling on training a generative music model. ## Verified Facts - In [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md), Universal, Sony, and Warner affiliates alleged in June 2024 that Suno copied their sound recordings to train a commercial music generator. Suno admitted training on tens of millions of recordings and pleaded fair use. Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice; UMG and Sony claims remained.[^1][^2][^3] - In [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md), the same majors filed a parallel June 2024 sound-recording action against Udio in the Southern District of New York. UMG/Capitol and Warner later dismissed their claims without prejudice. Sony remained and in July 2026 filed a second action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.[^4][^5][^6] - Both original label complaints plead post-1972 infringement under the Copyright Act and pre-1972 infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 1401, and both treat Exhibit A as an illustrative work list.[^1][^4] -- In [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), eight publishers allege that Anthropic used copyrighted lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics. On October 6, 2025, the Northern District of California denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the amended secondary-infringement and DMCA CMI claims.[^7] +- In [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), eight publishers allege that Anthropic used copyrighted lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics. On October 6, 2025, the Northern District of California denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the amended secondary-infringement and DMCA CMI claims. A second action, Concord II, filed January 28, 2026, alleges torrenting of books containing compositions and was related to Concord I on February 18, 2026.[^7][^12][^13] +- In [BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md), BMG sued Anthropic on March 17, 2026, alleging training and output infringement, torrenting, and CMI removal, and identifying Concord I and Concord II as related.[^14] +- In [Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md), Sony and Warner Chappell affiliates sued Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann on August 28, 2026, alleging torrenting, scraping, training, output reproduction, and CMI removal as to musical compositions.[^11] - In [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md), Landgericht München I on November 11, 2025 largely granted GEMA’s claims over nine German lyrics, holding that memorization in models 4 and 4o and output of those lyrics were unauthorized reproductions not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception. The court stated the judgment is not final.[^8][^9] - U.S. fair use is a four-factor, case-specific limitation in [17 U.S.C. § 107](STAT-USC-107.md). Suno’s answer invokes that defense; the label complaints argue it does not apply. No source cited on this page is a U.S. judicial determination of that question for a music generator.[^1][^2][^10] @@ -95,6 +111,14 @@ Generative-AI music disputes split along the same two copyright interests the in [^10]: `SRC-USC-17-107-LII` — 17 U.S.C. § 107. +[^11]: `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026` — Sony/Warner publisher complaint (Aug. 28, 2026). Pending; allegations. + +[^12]: `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT` — Concord II complaint (Jan. 28, 2026). Pending; allegations. + +[^13]: `SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026` — Related-case order (Feb. 18, 2026). + +[^14]: `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT` — BMG complaint (Mar. 17, 2026). Pending; allegations. + ## Historical Context Recorded-music copyright already distinguished the composition from the fixed recording. Generative systems cut across that line. A text model that emits lyrics is a composition problem. An audio model that emits a new recording in the style of existing masters is a sound-recording problem, and sometimes also a composition problem if melody or lyrics are reproduced. The 2024 label complaints treat the second problem as mass infringement of § 106 and § 1401 rights.[^1][^4] The publisher and GEMA matters treat the first as unauthorized reproduction and making available of lyrics.[^7][^8] @@ -124,6 +148,8 @@ Broader authorship and book/news training issues stay on [Copyright and Generati - `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. - `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`. - `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `STAT-USC-107`. +- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`. ## Sources @@ -137,10 +163,14 @@ Broader authorship and book/news training issues stay on [Copyright and Generati 8. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`: Munich judgment (2025). 9. `SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`: Munich press release (2025). 10. `SRC-USC-17-107-LII`: 17 U.S.C. § 107. +11. `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`: Sony/Warner publisher complaint (2026). +12. `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`: Concord II complaint (2026). +13. `SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`: Concord II related-case order (2026). +14. `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`: BMG v. Anthropic complaint (2026). ## Research Debt - Add GEMA v. Suno or other official German audio-model judgments when the court text is available. -- Add any BMG or other publisher complaints against Anthropic or OpenAI from those filings. +- Add Anthropic’s response in Sony/Warner, BMG, and Concord II, and any motion to dismiss. - Add U.S. fair-use or § 1201 orders in the Suno and Udio dockets when they issue. - Do not use lawsuit-tracker royalty or equity figures as facts. diff --git a/website/generated/bibliography.md b/website/generated/bibliography.md index e32eb89b..d4884089 100644 --- a/website/generated/bibliography.md +++ b/website/generated/bibliography.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ This page is generated from bibliography metadata. Do not edit it manually. -Record count: 232 +Record count: 253 ## `SRC-ABBATE-VT`: Janet Abbate Virginia Tech Faculty Profile { #SRC-ABBATE-VT } @@ -76,6 +76,32 @@ Law-firm client alert describing CCIA’s February 2026 First Amendment challeng ### Cited By - [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION: App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md) +## `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET`: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201) { #SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +CourtListener docket for the visual-artists putative class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) + +## `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) { #SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Northern District of California order allowing artists’ Copyright Act and some Lanham Act claims against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway to proceed, while dismissing DMCA claims with prejudice. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## `SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026`: AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism { #SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026 } - Type: `source` @@ -209,6 +235,22 @@ Georgetown University faculty profile for Matt Blaze describing his research in ### Cited By - [`PERSON-MATT-BLAZE: Matt Blaze`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-MATT-BLAZE.md) +## `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) { #SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +BMG publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works, and removed copyright management information. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) + ## `SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING`: Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising { #SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING } - Type: `source` @@ -565,6 +607,34 @@ Northern District of Florida summary-judgment opinion upholding OFAC’s Tornado - [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN: Coin Center v. Yellen`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md) - [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH: Tornado Cash Sanctions and Developer Prosecutions`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md) +## `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026) { #SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Second Concord/UMG/ABKCO publisher complaint against Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann alleging torrenting of books containing musical compositions and later Claude training and outputs. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) + +## `SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026) { #SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Order relating Concord II (No. 5:26-cv-00880) to Concord I (No. 5:24-cv-03811) before Judge Eumi K. Lee. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) + ## `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811) { #SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET } - Type: `source` @@ -655,6 +725,62 @@ Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation profile for Whitfield ### Cited By - [`PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE: Whitfield Diffie`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE.md) +## `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) { #SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Studio complaint alleging that Midjourney copied Disney and Universal character works to train an image generator and that the service outputs unauthorized reproductions and derivatives. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + +## `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026) { #SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Magistrate discovery order in the consolidated Disney/Universal/Warner Bros. action against Midjourney, limiting compelled production of the studios’ own generative-AI materials to consumer-facing uses of the asserted works. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + +## `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`: Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700) { #SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, open-source-software + +Ninth Circuit CourtListener docket for the interlocutory appeal from the Northern District of California Copilot / GitHub copyright-management-information order. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + +## `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) { #SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, open-source-software + +Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice open-source developers’ DMCA § 1202(b) claims against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI entities, while allowing breach-of-open-source-license claims to proceed. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## `SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001`: DOJ — Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001) { #SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001 } - Type: `source` @@ -709,6 +835,32 @@ DOJ-hosted indictment charging Roman Storm and Roman Semenov with money-launderi - [`TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY: Documented Proceedings Involving Software Authors and Operators`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY.md) - [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH: Tornado Cash Sanctions and Developer Prosecutions`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md) +## `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984) { #SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +CourtListener docket for the Wall Street Journal and New York Post copyright action against Perplexity AI. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) + +## `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025) { #SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Southern District of New York opinion denying Perplexity’s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, denying transfer, and allowing later-registered works to remain in the case. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## `SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`: Arne Babenhauserheide — The Path Towards Decentralized Moderation { #SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION } - Type: `source` @@ -1022,6 +1174,47 @@ Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI ju - [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) - [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) +## `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) { #SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +High Court of England and Wales trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary copyright claim against Stable Diffusion and finding limited historic trade-mark infringement from generated watermarks. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + +## `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) { #SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Getty Images complaint alleging that Stability AI copied millions of Getty photographs to train Stable Diffusion and infringed copyrights and trademarks. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) + +## `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026) { #SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Northern District of California order dismissing Getty’s DMCA § 1202(a) false-CMI claim without prejudice and allowing trademark and California unfair-competition claims to proceed. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## `SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT`: GNUnet About Page { #SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT } - Type: `source` @@ -1035,6 +1228,21 @@ Official GNUnet about page describing the project as a Free Software stack for s - [`TECH-GNUNET: GNUnet`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md) - [`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION: Decentralized Moderation in Censorship-Resistant Networks`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md) +## `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025) { #SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice direct-infringement claims as to specified Google models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, while leaving training claims as to Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related models for later stages. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## `SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA`: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia) { #SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA } - Type: `source` @@ -1202,6 +1410,20 @@ Official First Amendment issues page of the Institute for Justice describing its ### Cited By - [`ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE: Institute for Justice`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE.md) +## `SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`: In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) { #SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Southern District of New York order holding that author class plaintiffs adequately pleaded ChatGPT output-based copyright infringement, without deciding fair use. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## `SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025`: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025) { #SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025 } - Type: `source` @@ -1254,6 +1476,21 @@ EFF case page documenting the Supreme Court's 2022 rejection of Jewel v. NSA, en ### Cited By - [`PERSON-CINDY-COHN: Cindy Cohn`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-CINDY-COHN.md) +## `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143) { #SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation order centralizing OpenAI copyright actions in the Southern District of New York before Judge Sidney H. Stein. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## `SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO`: Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page { #SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO } - Type: `source` @@ -1342,6 +1579,35 @@ Press release from Representative Ro Khanna's office announcing the Internet Bil ### Cited By - [`PERSON-RO-KHANNA: Ro Khanna`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-RO-KHANNA.md) +## `SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024) { #SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Hamburg Regional Court first-instance judgment dismissing a photographer’s claim against LAION, holding that downloading an image to build a training dataset was covered by the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION: Kneschke v. LAION e.V.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + +## `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025) { #SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Hanseatic Higher Regional Court report that the photographer’s appeal was dismissed and that LAION’s dataset download was covered by both § 44b and § 60d UrhG. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) +- [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION: Kneschke v. LAION e.V.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## `SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT`: Knight First Amendment Institute About Page { #SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT } - Type: `source` @@ -1583,6 +1849,19 @@ Southern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publish - [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +## `SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`: The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106) { #SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +CourtListener docket for the New York Times copyright and trademark action against Perplexity AI, filed December 5, 2025. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) +- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) + ## `SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076`: OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation { #SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076 } - Type: `source` @@ -2153,6 +2432,22 @@ Official Signal specification for the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman key agreeme ### Cited By - [`ORG-SIGNAL: Signal`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md) +## `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) { #SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 } + +- Type: `source` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) +- Tags: source, case, copyright, artificial-intelligence + +Music-publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude, and that outputs reproduce those compositions. + +### Cited By +- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT: Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION: AI Litigation Landscape`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT: Music Copyright and Generative AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) + ## `SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026) { #SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT } - Type: `source` diff --git a/website/generated/citations.md b/website/generated/citations.md index 9cf103df..77a43ea3 100644 --- a/website/generated/citations.md +++ b/website/generated/citations.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ This page is generated from `sources` and relationship source metadata. Do not edit it manually. -Source count: 232 +Source count: 253 ## [`SRC-ABBATE-VT`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-ABBATE-VT.md): Janet Abbate Virginia Tech Faculty Profile @@ -33,6 +33,23 @@ Source count: 232 - Page source in [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md) +## [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md): Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201) + +- Page source in [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) + +## [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md): Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) + +- Page source in [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `cites` [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) + ## [`SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md): AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism - Page source in [`EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/EVENT-FSB-DUROV-TELEGRAM-2026.md) @@ -123,6 +140,21 @@ Source count: 232 - Page source in [`PERSON-MATT-BLAZE`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-MATT-BLAZE.md) - Relationship source in [`PERSON-MATT-BLAZE`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-MATT-BLAZE.md): [`PERSON-MATT-BLAZE`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-MATT-BLAZE.md) `cites` [`SRC-BLAZE-GEORGETOWN`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BLAZE-GEORGETOWN.md) +## [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md): BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) + +- Page source in [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + ## [`SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING.md): Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising - Page source in [`PERSON-CORY-BOOKER`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-CORY-BOOKER.md) @@ -322,6 +354,19 @@ Source count: 232 - Page source in [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md) - Relationship source in [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md): [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md) `related_to` [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md) +## [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026) + +- Page source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) + +## [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026) + +- Page source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) + ## [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811) - Page source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) @@ -371,6 +416,41 @@ Source count: 232 - Page source in [`PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE.md) - Relationship source in [`PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE.md): [`PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-WHITFIELD-DIFFIE.md) `cites` [`SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC.md) +## [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md): Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) + +- Page source in [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md): [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) `cites` [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md): [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md): [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) + +## [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md): Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026) + +- Page source in [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + +## [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md): Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700) + +- Page source in [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + +## [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md): Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) + +- Page source in [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md): [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) `cites` [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md): [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md): [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md): [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) + ## [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001.md): DOJ — Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001) - Page source in [`CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-SKLYAROV.md) @@ -400,6 +480,21 @@ Source count: 232 - Page source in [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md) - Relationship source in [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md): [`TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-TORNADO-CASH.md) `related_to` [`CASE-US-V-STORM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-STORM.md) +## [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md): Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984) + +- Page source in [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) + +## [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md): Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025) + +- Page source in [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md): [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) `cites` [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md): [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md): [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) + ## [`SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md): Arne Babenhauserheide — The Path Towards Decentralized Moderation - Page source in [`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md) @@ -561,12 +656,50 @@ Source count: 232 - Page source in [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) - Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) +## [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md): Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) + +- Page source in [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) `cites` [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) + +## [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md): Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) + +- Page source in [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) + +## [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md): Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026) + +- Page source in [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) `cites` [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md): GNUnet About Page - Page source in [`TECH-GNUNET`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md) - Relationship source in [`TECH-GNUNET`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md): [`TECH-GNUNET`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-GNUNET.md) `cites` [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md) - Page source in [`TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TOPIC-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md) +## [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md): In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025) + +- Page source in [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md): [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- Page source in [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md): [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) `cites` [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md): [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md): [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md): [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) + ## [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md): Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia) - Page source in [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) @@ -652,6 +785,16 @@ Source count: 232 - Relationship source in [`ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE.md): [`ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE.md) `cites` [`SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md) - Relationship source in [`ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE.md): [`ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-JUSTICE.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md) +## [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md): In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) + +- Page source in [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) `cites` [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) + ## [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025.md): IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025) - Page source in [`CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-RODRIGUEZ.md) @@ -684,6 +827,16 @@ Source count: 232 - Page source in [`PERSON-CINDY-COHN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-CINDY-COHN.md) - Relationship source in [`PERSON-CINDY-COHN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-CINDY-COHN.md): [`PERSON-CINDY-COHN`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-CINDY-COHN.md) `cites` [`SRC-JEWEL-V-NSA-EFF`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JEWEL-V-NSA-EFF.md) +## [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md): In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143) + +- Page source in [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) `cites` [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) +- Page source in [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## [`SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md): Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page - Page source in [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md) @@ -731,6 +884,26 @@ Source count: 232 - Page source in [`PERSON-RO-KHANNA`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-RO-KHANNA.md) - Relationship source in [`PERSON-RO-KHANNA`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-RO-KHANNA.md): [`PERSON-RO-KHANNA`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-RO-KHANNA.md) `cites` [`SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md) +## [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md): Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024) + +- Page source in [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md): [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) `cites` [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md): [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md): [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) + +## [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md): Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025) + +- Page source in [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Page source in [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md): [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) + ## [`SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT.md): Knight First Amendment Institute About Page - Page source in [`ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md) @@ -856,6 +1029,12 @@ Source count: 232 - Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) - Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) +## [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md): The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106) + +- Page source in [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) +- Page source in [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md): [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) + ## [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md): OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation - Page source in [`TECH-TORNADO-CASH`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/TECH-TORNADO-CASH.md) @@ -1125,6 +1304,22 @@ Source count: 232 - Page source in [`ORG-SIGNAL`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md) - Relationship source in [`ORG-SIGNAL`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md): [`ORG-SIGNAL`](source-docs/knowledge/organizations/ORG-SIGNAL.md) `cites` [`SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md) +## [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md): Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) + +- Page source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Page source in [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Relationship source in [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md): [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Page source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Relationship source in [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + ## [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md): Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026) - Page source in [`CASE-UMG-V-UDIO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) diff --git a/website/generated/glossary.md b/website/generated/glossary.md index af68bee2..253a3f14 100644 --- a/website/generated/glossary.md +++ b/website/generated/glossary.md @@ -2,7 +2,16 @@ This page is generated from knowledge metadata. Do not edit it manually. -Record count: 143 +Record count: 153 + +## `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. { #CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY } + +- Type: `case` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice. ## `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC } @@ -22,6 +31,15 @@ Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was trans Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), held that software source code is protected speech under the First Amendment and that government regulations preventing its publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint. +## `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC } + +- Type: `case` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information. + ## `CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. { #CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS } - Type: `case` @@ -74,7 +92,34 @@ Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023), granted summ - Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights -Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims. +Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions. + +## `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc. { #CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY } + +- Type: `case` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters. + +## `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc. { #CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB } + +- Type: `case` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, open-source-software + +Open-source developers’ action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026. + +## `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. { #CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY } + +- Type: `case` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) +- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity’s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district. ## `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. { #CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES } @@ -94,6 +139,15 @@ Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pend First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final. +## `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. { #CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY } + +- Type: `case` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage. + ## `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. { #CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE } - Type: `case` @@ -103,6 +157,24 @@ First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyr Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision that Google's copying of approximately 11,500 lines of Java API declaring code for use in Android constituted fair use under copyright law. +## `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation { #CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI } + +- Type: `case` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims. + +## `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation { #CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI } + +- Type: `case` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use. + ## `CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`: Junger v. Daley { #CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY } - Type: `case` @@ -121,6 +193,15 @@ Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors’ books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings. +## `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`: Kneschke v. LAION e.V. { #CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION } + +- Type: `case` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +German photographer’s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception. + ## `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. { #CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL } - Type: `case` @@ -175,6 +256,15 @@ Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), is an appellate d Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain Communications Decency Act provisions restricting indecent and patently offensive Internet speech violated the First Amendment. +## `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC } + +- Type: `case` +- Status: `draft` +- Path: [`knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Tags: case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions. + ## `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab { #CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM } - Type: `case` @@ -1118,7 +1208,7 @@ Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and s - Path: [`knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Tags: copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies -U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims. +U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation. ## `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`: AI Litigation Landscape { #TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION } @@ -1127,7 +1217,7 @@ U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human a - Path: [`knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) - Tags: artificial-intelligence, copyright, first-amendment, digital-rights, case-studies, intermediary-liability -Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. +Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. ## `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`: Music Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT } @@ -1136,7 +1226,7 @@ Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of - Path: [`knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) - Tags: copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies -Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. +Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. ## `TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`: App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws { #TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION } diff --git a/website/generated/handbook.md b/website/generated/handbook.md index 5ad6c2ac..a1ff780b 100644 --- a/website/generated/handbook.md +++ b/website/generated/handbook.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ This page is generated from knowledge metadata. Do not edit it manually. -**Release:** 0.1.0 (Unreleased) | **Generated:** 2026-08-22 | **Records:** 143 | **Sources referenced:** 229 +**Release:** 0.1.0 (Unreleased) | **Generated:** 2026-09-02 | **Records:** 153 | **Sources referenced:** 250
@@ -56,25 +56,35 @@ Knowledge records included in this handbook, grouped by type. ### Case +- [Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.](#CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY) (`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`) - [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`) - [Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice](#CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ) (`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`) +- [BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`) - [Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.](#CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS) (`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`) - [Carpenter v. United States](#CASE-CARPENTER-V-US) (`CASE-CARPENTER-V-US`) - [CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)](#CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420) (`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420`) - [Chatrie v. United States](#CASE-CHATRIE-V-US) (`CASE-CHATRIE-V-US`) - [Coin Center v. Yellen](#CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN) (`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN`) - [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`) +- [Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.](#CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY) (`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`) +- [Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.](#CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB) (`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`) +- [Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.](#CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY) (`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`) - [Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.](#CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES) (`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`) - [GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)](#CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI) (`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`) +- [Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.](#CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY) (`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`) - [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](#CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE) (`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`) +- [In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation](#CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI) (`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`) +- [In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation](#CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI) (`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`) - [Junger v. Daley](#CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY) (`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`) - [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](#CASE-KADREY-V-META) (`CASE-KADREY-V-META`) +- [Kneschke v. LAION e.V.](#CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION) (`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`) - [Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.](#CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL) (`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`) - [Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)](#CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV) (`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV`) - [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)](#CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI) (`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`) - [Packingham v. North Carolina](#CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC) (`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`) - [Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC](#CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL) (`CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL`) - [Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union](#CASE-RENO-V-ACLU) (`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU`) +- [Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`) - [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](#CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM) (`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`) - [Thaler v. Perlmutter](#CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER) (`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`) - [Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.](#CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS) (`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`) @@ -259,7 +269,7 @@ Agora is a Russian human rights lawyers' group associated with Pavel Chikov; OIR - **Status:** draft - **Tags:** artificial-intelligence, copyright, first-amendment, digital-rights, case-studies, intermediary-liability -Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. +Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. ### Alan Kay { #PERSON-ALAN-KAY-glossary } @@ -288,6 +298,15 @@ Alex Abdo is litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute and a f American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. civil liberties organization documented in OIR from official ACLU pages. +### Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. { #CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice. + ### Andrew Russell { #PERSON-ANDREW-RUSSELL-glossary } - **Record ID:** `PERSON-ANDREW-RUSSELL` @@ -333,6 +352,15 @@ Ben Wizner is ACLU Deputy Legal Director and Director of its Center for Democrac Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), held that software source code is protected speech under the First Amendment and that government regulations preventing its publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint. +### BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information. + ### Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters { #TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT-glossary } - **Record ID:** `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` @@ -466,7 +494,7 @@ The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, is the primary U.S. - **Status:** draft - **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights -Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims. +Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions. ### Cooley { #ORG-COOLEY-glossary } @@ -484,7 +512,7 @@ Cooley is a global law firm that is the - **Status:** draft - **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies -U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims. +U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation. ### Cory Booker { #PERSON-CORY-BOOKER-glossary } @@ -549,6 +577,15 @@ Case-study topic on how Freenet/Hyphanet and GNUnet confronted spam and abuse wh Topic on government search and seizure of digital devices—especially at the border—and privacy technologies such as duress wipes that can collide with obstruction or destruction-of-evidence statutes. +### Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc. { #CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters. + ### DMCA Takedown and Counter-Notification { #TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE-glossary } - **Record ID:** `TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE` @@ -567,6 +604,15 @@ U.S. DMCA notice-and-takedown and counter-notification procedure under 17 U.S.C. Inventory of documented U.S. and selected foreign proceedings in which people who wrote, published, or operated software faced criminal investigation, prosecution, civil injunction, or OFAC sanctions — organized by legal tool and outcome. +### Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc. { #CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, open-source-software + +Open-source developers’ action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026. + ### Domain Name System { #PROTOCOL-DNS-glossary } - **Record ID:** `PROTOCOL-DNS` @@ -576,6 +622,15 @@ Inventory of documented U.S. and selected foreign proceedings in which people wh Domain Name System (DNS) concepts and facilities are described in RFC 1034. +### Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. { #CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity’s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district. + ### Eben Moglen { #PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN-glossary } - **Record ID:** `PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN` @@ -702,6 +757,15 @@ Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pend First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final. +### Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. { #CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage. + ### GNUnet { #TECH-GNUNET-glossary } - **Record ID:** `TECH-GNUNET` @@ -765,6 +829,24 @@ Hyphanet is the continuation of the original Freenet peer-to-peer network for an Ian Clarke is a computer scientist who designed Freenet, founded Freenet Project Inc., and later led the 2023 Freenet relaunch while the original network continued as Hyphanet. +### In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation { #CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims. + +### In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation { #CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use. + ### Institute for Free Speech { #ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH-glossary } - **Record ID:** `ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH` @@ -891,6 +973,15 @@ Katie Fallow is deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institu Kit Walsh is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Director of Artificial Intelligence and Access to Knowledge Legal Projects, working on free speech, net neutrality, copyright, coders' rights, and freedom of expression. +### Kneschke v. LAION e.V. { #CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +German photographer’s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception. + ### Knight First Amendment Institute { #ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT-glossary } - **Record ID:** `ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT` @@ -970,7 +1061,7 @@ Mitch Stoltz is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation wh - **Status:** draft - **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies -Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. +Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. ### Nathan Freed Wessler { #PERSON-NATHAN-FREED-WESSLER-glossary } @@ -1242,6 +1333,15 @@ Software Freedom Conservancy is a U.S. nonprofit organization that provides infr The Software Freedom Law Center provides pro bono legal representation and related services to not-for-profit developers of free and open source software. +### Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions. + ### Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab { #CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-glossary } - **Record ID:** `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` @@ -1626,6 +1726,13 @@ Pavel Chikov is a Russian human rights lawyer identified as representing Telegra ### Case +#### [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md): Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. { #CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY } + +- Status: `draft` +- Sources: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md), [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice. + #### [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md): Bartz v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC } - Status: `draft` @@ -1640,6 +1747,13 @@ Bartz v. Anthropic PBC held that using purchased books to train Claude was trans Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), held that software source code is protected speech under the First Amendment and that government regulations preventing its publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint. +#### [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md): BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC } + +- Status: `draft` +- Sources: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) + +Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information. + #### [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md): Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. { #CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS } - Status: `draft` @@ -1678,9 +1792,30 @@ Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023), granted summ #### [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC } - Status: `draft` -- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md), [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md) + +Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions. + +#### [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md): Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc. { #CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY } + +- Status: `draft` +- Sources: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md) + +Pending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters. + +#### [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md): Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc. { #CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB } + +- Status: `draft` +- Sources: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md), [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md) -Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims. +Open-source developers’ action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026. + +#### [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md): Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. { #CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY } + +- Status: `draft` +- Sources: [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) + +Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity’s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district. #### [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md): Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. { #CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES } @@ -1692,10 +1827,17 @@ Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pend #### [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md): GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I) { #CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI } - Status: `draft` -- Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md), [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final. +#### [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md): Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. { #CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY } + +- Status: `draft` +- Sources: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md), [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) + +English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage. + #### [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md): Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. { #CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE } - Status: `draft` @@ -1703,6 +1845,20 @@ First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyr Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision that Google's copying of approximately 11,500 lines of Java API declaring code for use in Android constituted fair use under copyright law. +#### [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md): In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation { #CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI } + +- Status: `draft` +- Sources: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims. + +#### [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md): In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation { #CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI } + +- Status: `draft` +- Sources: [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md), [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) + +Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use. + #### [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md): Junger v. Daley { #CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY } - Status: `draft` @@ -1717,6 +1873,13 @@ Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000), held that computer source code is Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted Meta summary judgment that copying thirteen authors’ books to train Llama was fair use on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings. +#### [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md): Kneschke v. LAION e.V. { #CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION } + +- Status: `draft` +- Sources: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md), [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) + +German photographer’s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception. + #### [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md): Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. { #CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL } - Status: `draft` @@ -1734,7 +1897,7 @@ East Brabant District Court judgment ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 (May 14, 2024) conv #### [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI) { #CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI } - Status: `draft` -- Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md), [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism. @@ -1759,6 +1922,13 @@ Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007), is an appellate d Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain Communications Decency Act provisions restricting indecent and patently offensive Internet speech violated the First Amendment. +#### [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md): Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC } + +- Status: `draft` +- Sources: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + +Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions. + #### [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md): Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab { #CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM } - Status: `draft` @@ -2378,23 +2548,23 @@ Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and s #### [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md): Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT } - Status: `draft` -- Sources: [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md), [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md), [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md), [`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md), [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md), [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md), [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md), [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md), [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md), [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md), [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md), [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md), [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md), [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md), [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md), [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md), [`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO.md) -U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims. +U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation. #### [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md): AI Litigation Landscape { #TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION } - Status: `draft` -- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md), [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md), [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md), [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md), [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md), [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md), [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md), [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md), [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md), [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md), [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md), [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md), [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md), [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md), [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md), [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) -Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. +Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. #### [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): Music Copyright and Generative AI { #TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT } - Status: `draft` -- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET.md), [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md), [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md), [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md), [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md), [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md) -Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. +Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. #### [`TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION.md): App Store and Operating System Age-Verification Laws { #TOPIC-APP-STORE-AGE-VERIFICATION } @@ -2525,6 +2695,8 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not - [`SRC-ACLU-HISTORY`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-ACLU-HISTORY.md): American Civil Liberties Union History Page (`verified`) - [`SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md): Alabama HB 161 Enrolled — App Store Accountability Act (`draft`) - [`SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md): Alston & Bird — Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md): Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md): Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) (`draft`) - [`SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md): AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism (`draft`) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md): Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md): Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (`draft`) @@ -2535,6 +2707,7 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not - [`SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA.md): Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999) (Justia) (`verified`) - [`SRC-BHANDARI-ACLU`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BHANDARI-ACLU.md): Esha Bhandari ACLU Staff Biography (`verified`) - [`SRC-BLAZE-GEORGETOWN`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BLAZE-GEORGETOWN.md): Matt Blaze Georgetown Faculty Profile (`verified`) +- [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md): BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) (`draft`) - [`SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING.md): Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising (`draft`) - [`SRC-BOYD-MSR`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOYD-MSR.md): danah boyd Microsoft Research Profile (`verified`) - [`SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO.md): Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (GovInfo) (`verified`) @@ -2563,6 +2736,8 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not - [`SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE.md): EFF Press Release - Cindy Cohn Stepping Down (`verified`) - [`SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE.md): FOSS Force - Cohn Returns to the Courtroom (`verified`) - [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md): Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026) (`draft`) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811) (`draft`) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md): Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-COOLEY-TECH`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md): Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page (`draft`) @@ -2570,10 +2745,16 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not - [`SRC-CORLEY-LII`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CORLEY-LII.md): Universal City Studios v. Corley Opinion Text (Open Casebook) (`verified`) - [`SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET.md): CourtListener Docket — United States v. Tunick (1:25-cr-00499) (`draft`) - [`SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC.md): Whitfield Diffie Stanford CISAC Profile (`verified`) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md): Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md): Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md): Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md): Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) (`draft`) - [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001.md): DOJ — Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001) (`draft`) - [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001.md): DOJ — First DMCA Indictment Against Sklyarov and Elcomsoft (Aug. 28, 2001) (`draft`) - [`SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025.md): SDNY National Security Page — Roman Storm Conviction Note (Aug. 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT.md): United States v. Storm / Semenov Indictment (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2023) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md): Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md): Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md): Arne Babenhauserheide — The Path Towards Decentralized Moderation (`draft`) - [`SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018.md): Arne Babenhauserheide — Hyphanet Web of Trust Keeps Communication Friendly (`draft`) - [`SRC-EFF-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-EFF-ABOUT.md): Electronic Frontier Foundation About Page (`verified`) @@ -2599,7 +2780,11 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not - [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md): Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md): LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`draft`) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md): Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md): Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md): Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md): Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026) (`draft`) - [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md): GNUnet About Page (`draft`) +- [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md): In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md): Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia) (`draft`) - [`SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO.md): Jennifer Granick ACLU Staff Biography (`verified`) - [`SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES.md): GrapheneOS Features Overview — Duress PIN/Password (`draft`) @@ -2613,10 +2798,12 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not - [`SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US.md): Institute for Free Speech About Us Page (`verified`) - [`SRC-IJ-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-IJ-ABOUT.md): Institute for Justice About Us Page (`verified`) - [`SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md): Institute for Justice First Amendment Practice Area (`verified`) +- [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md): In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025.md): IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025.md): IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Sentenced (Nov. 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-JAFFER-KNIGHT`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-JAFFER-KNIGHT.md): Jameel Jaffer Knight Institute Biography (`verified`) - [`SRC-JEWEL-V-NSA-EFF`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JEWEL-V-NSA-EFF.md): EFF Jewel v. NSA Case Page - Supreme Court Rejection (`verified`) +- [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md): In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143) (`draft`) - [`SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md): Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page (`verified`) - [`SRC-JUNGER-CMU`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-CMU.md): Junger v. Daley Opinion Text (CMU) (`verified`) - [`SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md): Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric (`verified`) @@ -2624,6 +2811,8 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not - [`SRC-KAHN-CNRI`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAHN-CNRI.md): Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography (`verified`) - [`SRC-KAY-CHM`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAY-CHM.md): Alan Kay Computer History Museum Profile (`verified`) - [`SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md): Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee (`draft`) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md): Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md): Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT.md): Knight First Amendment Institute About Page (`verified`) - [`SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT.md): Knight First Amendment Institute Contact and FAQ Page (`verified`) - [`SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA.md): Louisiana Act No. 185 — App Store Accountability Act (2026) (`draft`) @@ -2643,6 +2832,7 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026) (`draft`) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023) (`draft`) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md): The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`draft`) +- [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md): The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106) (`draft`) - [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md): OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation (`draft`) - [`SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md): OFAC Recent Actions — Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-ORIN-KERR-GWU`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-ORIN-KERR-GWU.md): Orin Kerr George Washington University Law Faculty Page (`verified`) @@ -2686,6 +2876,7 @@ Primary sources cited by knowledge records in this edition. This appendix is not - [`SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET.md): The Double Ratchet Algorithm (`verified`) - [`SRC-SIGNAL-HOME`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-SIGNAL-HOME.md): Signal Official Website (`verified`) - [`SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md): The X3DH Key Agreement Protocol (`verified`) +- [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md): Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) (`draft`) - [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md): Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026) (`draft`) - [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md): Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (`draft`) - [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md): Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248) (`draft`) diff --git a/website/generated/print-handbook.md b/website/generated/print-handbook.md index 5888e283..c4f33aa3 100644 --- a/website/generated/print-handbook.md +++ b/website/generated/print-handbook.md @@ -14,15 +14,15 @@
Generated
-
2026-08-22
+
2026-09-02
Knowledge records
-
143
+
153
Sources referenced
-
229
+
250
Document type
@@ -89,25 +89,35 @@ Knowledge records included in this handbook, grouped by type. ### Case +- [Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.](#CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY) (`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`) - [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`) - [Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice](#CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ) (`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`) +- [BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`) - [Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.](#CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS) (`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`) - [Carpenter v. United States](#CASE-CARPENTER-V-US) (`CASE-CARPENTER-V-US`) - [CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)](#CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420) (`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420`) - [Chatrie v. United States](#CASE-CHATRIE-V-US) (`CASE-CHATRIE-V-US`) - [Coin Center v. Yellen](#CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN) (`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN`) - [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`) +- [Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.](#CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY) (`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`) +- [Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.](#CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB) (`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`) +- [Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.](#CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY) (`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`) - [Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.](#CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES) (`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`) - [GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)](#CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI) (`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`) +- [Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.](#CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY) (`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`) - [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](#CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE) (`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`) +- [In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation](#CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI) (`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`) +- [In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation](#CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI) (`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`) - [Junger v. Daley](#CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY) (`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`) - [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](#CASE-KADREY-V-META) (`CASE-KADREY-V-META`) +- [Kneschke v. LAION e.V.](#CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION) (`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`) - [Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.](#CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL) (`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`) - [Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)](#CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV) (`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV`) - [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)](#CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI) (`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`) - [Packingham v. North Carolina](#CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC) (`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC`) - [Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC](#CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL) (`CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL`) - [Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union](#CASE-RENO-V-ACLU) (`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU`) +- [Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](#CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC) (`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`) - [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](#CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM) (`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`) - [Thaler v. Perlmutter](#CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER) (`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER`) - [Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.](#CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS) (`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS`) @@ -292,7 +302,7 @@ Agora is a Russian human rights lawyers' group associated with Pavel Chikov; OIR - **Status:** draft - **Tags:** artificial-intelligence, copyright, first-amendment, digital-rights, case-studies, intermediary-liability -Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. +Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. ### Alan Kay { #PERSON-ALAN-KAY-glossary } @@ -321,6 +331,15 @@ Alex Abdo is litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute and a f American Civil Liberties Union is a U.S. civil liberties organization documented in OIR from official ACLU pages. +### Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. { #CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice. + ### Andrew Russell { #PERSON-ANDREW-RUSSELL-glossary } - **Record ID:** `PERSON-ANDREW-RUSSELL` @@ -366,6 +385,15 @@ Ben Wizner is ACLU Deputy Legal Director and Director of its Center for Democrac Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), held that software source code is protected speech under the First Amendment and that government regulations preventing its publication constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint. +### BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information. + ### Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters { #TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT-glossary } - **Record ID:** `TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT` @@ -499,7 +527,7 @@ The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, is the primary U.S. - **Status:** draft - **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights -Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims. +Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions. ### Cooley { #ORG-COOLEY-glossary } @@ -517,7 +545,7 @@ Cooley is a global law firm that is the - **Status:** draft - **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies -U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims. +U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation. ### Cory Booker { #PERSON-CORY-BOOKER-glossary } @@ -582,6 +610,15 @@ Case-study topic on how Freenet/Hyphanet and GNUnet confronted spam and abuse wh Topic on government search and seizure of digital devices—especially at the border—and privacy technologies such as duress wipes that can collide with obstruction or destruction-of-evidence statutes. +### Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc. { #CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters. + ### DMCA Takedown and Counter-Notification { #TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE-glossary } - **Record ID:** `TOPIC-DMCA-TAKEDOWN-RESPONSE` @@ -600,6 +637,15 @@ U.S. DMCA notice-and-takedown and counter-notification procedure under 17 U.S.C. Inventory of documented U.S. and selected foreign proceedings in which people who wrote, published, or operated software faced criminal investigation, prosecution, civil injunction, or OFAC sanctions — organized by legal tool and outcome. +### Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc. { #CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, open-source-software + +Open-source developers’ action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026. + ### Domain Name System { #PROTOCOL-DNS-glossary } - **Record ID:** `PROTOCOL-DNS` @@ -609,6 +655,15 @@ Inventory of documented U.S. and selected foreign proceedings in which people wh Domain Name System (DNS) concepts and facilities are described in RFC 1034. +### Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. { #CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity’s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district. + ### Eben Moglen { #PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN-glossary } - **Record ID:** `PERSON-EBEN-MOGLEN` @@ -735,6 +790,15 @@ Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pend First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final. +### Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. { #CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage. + ### GNUnet { #TECH-GNUNET-glossary } - **Record ID:** `TECH-GNUNET` @@ -798,6 +862,24 @@ Hyphanet is the continuation of the original Freenet peer-to-peer network for an Ian Clarke is a computer scientist who designed Freenet, founded Freenet Project Inc., and later led the 2023 Freenet relaunch while the original network continued as Hyphanet. +### In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation { #CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims. + +### In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation { #CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use. + ### Institute for Free Speech { #ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH-glossary } - **Record ID:** `ORG-INSTITUTE-FOR-FREE-SPEECH` @@ -924,6 +1006,15 @@ Katie Fallow is deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institu Kit Walsh is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Director of Artificial Intelligence and Access to Knowledge Legal Projects, working on free speech, net neutrality, copyright, coders' rights, and freedom of expression. +### Kneschke v. LAION e.V. { #CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +German photographer’s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception. + ### Knight First Amendment Institute { #ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT-glossary } - **Record ID:** `ORG-KNIGHT-FIRST-AMENDMENT` @@ -1003,7 +1094,7 @@ Mitch Stoltz is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation wh - **Status:** draft - **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies -Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. +Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. ### Nathan Freed Wessler { #PERSON-NATHAN-FREED-WESSLER-glossary } @@ -1275,6 +1366,15 @@ Software Freedom Conservancy is a U.S. nonprofit organization that provides infr The Software Freedom Law Center provides pro bono legal representation and related services to not-for-profit developers of free and open source software. +### Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-glossary } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` +- **Type:** case +- **Status:** draft +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions. + ### Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab { #CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-glossary } - **Record ID:** `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` @@ -1731,6 +1831,17 @@ Pavel Chikov is a Russian human rights lawyer identified as representing Telegra ### Case +#### Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. { #CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` +- **Status:** draft +- **Sources:** Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) (`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`), Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201) (`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET`), In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025) (`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`) +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice. + +--- + #### Bartz v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC } - **Record ID:** `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` @@ -1753,6 +1864,17 @@ Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999), --- +#### BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` +- **Status:** draft +- **Sources:** BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) (`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`) +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information. + +--- + #### Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. { #CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS } - **Record ID:** `CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS` @@ -1812,10 +1934,43 @@ Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023), granted summ - **Record ID:** `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` - **Status:** draft -- **Sources:** Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`) +- **Sources:** Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026) (`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026) (`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`), BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) (`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`), Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) (`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`) +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions. + +--- + +#### Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc. { #CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` +- **Status:** draft +- **Sources:** Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`), Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026) (`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`) - **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights -Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims. +Pending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters. + +--- + +#### Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc. { #CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` +- **Status:** draft +- **Sources:** Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`), Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700) (`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`) +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, open-source-software + +Open-source developers’ action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026. + +--- + +#### Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. { #CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` +- **Status:** draft +- **Sources:** Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025) (`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`), Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984) (`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`), The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106) (`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`) +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity’s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district. --- @@ -1834,13 +1989,24 @@ Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla.), is a pend - **Record ID:** `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` - **Status:** draft -- **Sources:** LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`), Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`) +- **Sources:** LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`), Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`), Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025) (`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`) - **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final. --- +#### Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. { #CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` +- **Status:** draft +- **Sources:** Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`), Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) (`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`), Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026) (`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`) +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage. + +--- + #### Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. { #CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE } - **Record ID:** `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE` @@ -1852,6 +2018,28 @@ Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), held in a 6-2 decision --- +#### In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation { #CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` +- **Status:** draft +- **Sources:** In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025) (`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`) +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims. + +--- + +#### In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation { #CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` +- **Status:** draft +- **Sources:** In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143) (`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`), In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) (`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`) +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use. + +--- + #### Junger v. Daley { #CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY } - **Record ID:** `CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY` @@ -1874,6 +2062,17 @@ Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025), granted M --- +#### Kneschke v. LAION e.V. { #CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` +- **Status:** draft +- **Sources:** Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024) (`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`), Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025) (`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`) +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +German photographer’s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception. + +--- + #### Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. { #CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL } - **Record ID:** `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL` @@ -1900,7 +2099,7 @@ East Brabant District Court judgment ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 (May 14, 2024) conv - **Record ID:** `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` - **Status:** draft -- **Sources:** The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`) +- **Sources:** The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`), In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143) (`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`), The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106) (`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`) - **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights Pending Southern District of New York copyright litigation in which The New York Times and other publishers allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied news works to train large language models and that outputs substitute for licensed journalism. @@ -1940,6 +2139,17 @@ Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), held that certain C --- +#### Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC { #CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC } + +- **Record ID:** `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` +- **Status:** draft +- **Sources:** Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) (`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`) +- **Tags:** case, copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights + +Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions. + +--- + #### Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab { #CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM } - **Record ID:** `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` @@ -2904,10 +3114,10 @@ Tornado Cash is an open-source Ethereum smart-contract protocol that pools and s - **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` - **Status:** draft -- **Sources:** Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023) (`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`), U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025) (`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`), Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`), Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) (`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`), Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`), Kit Walsh EFF Staff Biography (`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`) +- **Sources:** Copyright Registration Guidance — Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190 (Mar. 16, 2023) (`SRC-USCO-AI-REGISTRATION-GUIDANCE-2023`), U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025) (`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`), Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`), Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) (`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`), Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`), Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`), Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) (`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`), Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`), Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026) (`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`), Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) (`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`), Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`), Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700) (`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`), In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143) (`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`), In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) (`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`), Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) (`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`), Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026) (`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`), Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024) (`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`), Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025) (`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`), In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025) (`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`), Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025) (`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026) (`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`), BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) (`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`), Kit Walsh EFF Staff Biography (`SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO`) - **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies -U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims. +U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation. --- @@ -2915,10 +3125,10 @@ U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human a - **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` - **Status:** draft -- **Sources:** Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`), Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) (`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`), Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`), Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) (`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`), U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025) (`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`) +- **Sources:** Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`), Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`), Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`), Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025) (`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`), The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026) (`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`), Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`), Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) (`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`), U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2 — Copyrightability (January 2025) (`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`), Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`), Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) (`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`), Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`), Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026) (`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`), Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) (`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`), Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`), Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700) (`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`), In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143) (`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`), In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) (`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`), Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026) (`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`), Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024) (`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`), Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025) (`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`), In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025) (`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`), Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025) (`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026) (`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`), BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) (`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`) - **Tags:** artificial-intelligence, copyright, first-amendment, digital-rights, case-studies, intermediary-liability -Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. +Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. --- @@ -2926,10 +3136,10 @@ Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of - **Record ID:** `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` - **Status:** draft -- **Sources:** UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`), Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`), Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`) +- **Sources:** UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Warner plaintiffs’ stipulation of dismissal (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2025) (`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-WARNER-DISMISSAL`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`), UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-04777) (`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-DOCKET`), Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026) (`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`), LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`), Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI) (`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`), Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) (`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026) (`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`), Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026) (`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`), BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) (`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`), 17 U.S.C. § 107 (`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`) - **Tags:** copyright, artificial-intelligence, digital-rights, case-studies -Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. +Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. --- @@ -3178,6 +3388,24 @@ Law-firm client alert describing CCIA’s February 2026 First Amendment challeng --- +### Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET` +- **Status:** draft + +CourtListener docket for the visual-artists putative class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway. + +--- + +### Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024` +- **Status:** draft + +Northern District of California order allowing artists’ Copyright Act and some Lanham Act claims against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway to proceed, while dismissing DMCA claims with prejudice. + +--- + ### AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism - **Source ID:** `SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026` @@ -3268,6 +3496,15 @@ Georgetown University faculty profile for Matt Blaze describing his research in --- +### BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT` +- **Status:** draft + +BMG publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works, and removed copyright management information. + +--- + ### Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising - **Source ID:** `SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING` @@ -3520,6 +3757,24 @@ Northern District of Florida summary-judgment opinion upholding OFAC’s Tornado --- +### Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT` +- **Status:** draft + +Second Concord/UMG/ABKCO publisher complaint against Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann alleging torrenting of books containing musical compositions and later Claude training and outputs. + +--- + +### Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026` +- **Status:** draft + +Order relating Concord II (No. 5:26-cv-00880) to Concord I (No. 5:24-cv-03811) before Judge Eumi K. Lee. + +--- + ### Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811) - **Source ID:** `SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET` @@ -3583,6 +3838,42 @@ Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation profile for Whitfield --- +### Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT` +- **Status:** draft + +Studio complaint alleging that Midjourney copied Disney and Universal character works to train an image generator and that the service outputs unauthorized reproductions and derivatives. + +--- + +### Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026` +- **Status:** draft + +Magistrate discovery order in the consolidated Disney/Universal/Warner Bros. action against Midjourney, limiting compelled production of the studios’ own generative-AI materials to consumer-facing uses of the asserted works. + +--- + +### Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET` +- **Status:** draft + +Ninth Circuit CourtListener docket for the interlocutory appeal from the Northern District of California Copilot / GitHub copyright-management-information order. + +--- + +### Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024` +- **Status:** draft + +Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice open-source developers’ DMCA § 1202(b) claims against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI entities, while allowing breach-of-open-source-license claims to proceed. + +--- + ### DOJ — Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001) - **Source ID:** `SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001` @@ -3619,6 +3910,24 @@ DOJ-hosted indictment charging Roman Storm and Roman Semenov with money-launderi --- +### Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET` +- **Status:** draft + +CourtListener docket for the Wall Street Journal and New York Post copyright action against Perplexity AI. + +--- + +### Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025` +- **Status:** draft + +Southern District of New York opinion denying Perplexity’s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, denying transfer, and allowing later-registered works to remain in the case. + +--- + ### Arne Babenhauserheide — The Path Towards Decentralized Moderation - **Source ID:** `SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION` @@ -3844,6 +4153,33 @@ Official court press release summarizing the November 11, 2025 GEMA v. OpenAI ju --- +### Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025` +- **Status:** draft + +High Court of England and Wales trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary copyright claim against Stable Diffusion and finding limited historic trade-mark infringement from generated watermarks. + +--- + +### Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT` +- **Status:** draft + +Getty Images complaint alleging that Stability AI copied millions of Getty photographs to train Stable Diffusion and infringed copyrights and trademarks. + +--- + +### Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026` +- **Status:** draft + +Northern District of California order dismissing Getty’s DMCA § 1202(a) false-CMI claim without prejudice and allowing trademark and California unfair-competition claims to proceed. + +--- + ### GNUnet About Page - **Source ID:** `SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT` @@ -3853,6 +4189,15 @@ Official GNUnet about page describing the project as a Free Software stack for s --- +### In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025` +- **Status:** draft + +Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice direct-infringement claims as to specified Google models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, while leaving training claims as to Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related models for later stages. + +--- + ### Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia) - **Source ID:** `SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA` @@ -3970,6 +4315,15 @@ Official First Amendment issues page of the Institute for Justice describing its --- +### In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025` +- **Status:** draft + +Southern District of New York order holding that author class plaintiffs adequately pleaded ChatGPT output-based copyright infringement, without deciding fair use. + +--- + ### IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025) - **Source ID:** `SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025` @@ -4006,6 +4360,15 @@ EFF case page documenting the Supreme Court's 2022 rejection of Jewel v. NSA, en --- +### In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143` +- **Status:** draft + +Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation order centralizing OpenAI copyright actions in the Southern District of New York before Judge Sidney H. Stein. + +--- + ### Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page - **Source ID:** `SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO` @@ -4069,6 +4432,24 @@ Press release from Representative Ro Khanna's office announcing the Internet Bil --- +### Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024` +- **Status:** draft + +Hamburg Regional Court first-instance judgment dismissing a photographer’s claim against LAION, holding that downloading an image to build a training dataset was covered by the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception. + +--- + +### Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025` +- **Status:** draft + +Hanseatic Higher Regional Court report that the photographer’s appeal was dismissed and that LAION’s dataset download was covered by both § 44b and § 60d UrhG. + +--- + ### Knight First Amendment Institute About Page - **Source ID:** `SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT` @@ -4240,6 +4621,15 @@ Southern District of New York opinion largely denying motions to dismiss publish --- +### The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET` +- **Status:** draft + +CourtListener docket for the New York Times copyright and trademark action against Perplexity AI, filed December 5, 2025. + +--- + ### OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation - **Source ID:** `SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076` @@ -4627,6 +5017,15 @@ Official Signal specification for the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman key agreeme --- +### Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) + +- **Source ID:** `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026` +- **Status:** draft + +Music-publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude, and that outputs reproduce those compositions. + +--- + ### Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026) - **Source ID:** `SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT` diff --git a/website/generated/relationship-graph.md b/website/generated/relationship-graph.md index c93cc20f..a32ec6ed 100644 --- a/website/generated/relationship-graph.md +++ b/website/generated/relationship-graph.md @@ -37,10 +37,10 @@ Deep-link examples: `?focus=TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT` or `?focus=TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDM
-Corpus edge count: 501 (full graph is not drawn by default) +Corpus edge count: 569 (full graph is not drawn by default) diff --git a/website/generated/relationships.md b/website/generated/relationships.md index 4f0914c9..79e023bc 100644 --- a/website/generated/relationships.md +++ b/website/generated/relationships.md @@ -2,7 +2,37 @@ This page is generated from relationship metadata. Do not edit it manually. -Edge count: 501 +Edge count: 569 + +## [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `cites` [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) + +## [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) + +## [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) + +## [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) + +## [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) ## [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md) @@ -49,6 +79,21 @@ Edge count: 501 - Declared in: [`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md) - Sources: [`SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA.md) +## [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) + +## [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) + +## [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) + ## [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md) `cites` [`SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md) @@ -149,16 +194,31 @@ Edge count: 501 - Declared in: [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md) - Sources: [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md) +## [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md) + ## [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) +## [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) + ## [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) +## [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + ## [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) @@ -169,6 +229,56 @@ Edge count: 501 - Declared in: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) +## [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) `cites` [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) + +## [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) + +## [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) + +## [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) `cites` [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) + +## [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) + +## [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) + +## [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) + +## [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) `cites` [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) + ## [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) `cites` [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) @@ -204,6 +314,11 @@ Edge count: 501 - Declared in: [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) - Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) +## [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) + ## [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) @@ -214,6 +329,31 @@ Edge count: 501 - Declared in: [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) - Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) +## [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) `cites` [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) `cites` [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) + +## [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) + +## [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) + ## [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) `cites` [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) @@ -224,6 +364,46 @@ Edge count: 501 - Declared in: [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) - Sources: [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md) +## [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) `cites` [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) `cites` [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) `cites` [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) + +## [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) + +## [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) + ## [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md) `cites` [`SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md) @@ -264,6 +444,26 @@ Edge count: 501 - Declared in: [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) - Sources: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md) +## [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) `cites` [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) + +## [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) + +## [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) + +## [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) + ## [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md) `cites` [`SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md) @@ -314,6 +514,16 @@ Edge count: 501 - Declared in: [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) - Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md) +## [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) + +## [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) + ## [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) `related_to` [`STAT-USC-107`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-USC-107.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) @@ -394,6 +604,26 @@ Edge count: 501 - Declared in: [`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md) - Sources: [`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC.md) +## [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `cites` [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + +## [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + +## [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + +## [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) `related_to` [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) + +- Declared in: [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + ## [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) `cites` [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md) - Declared in: [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) @@ -1850,36 +2080,86 @@ France 24/AFP identified Kaminski as Durov's lawyer in the August 2024 French ch - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Sources: [`SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USCO-AI-COPYRIGHTABILITY-REPORT-2025.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Sources: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) + +## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) + +## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Sources: [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Sources: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) @@ -1930,16 +2210,41 @@ France 24/AFP identified Kaminski as Durov's lawyer in the August 2024 French ch - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md) - Sources: [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) - Sources: [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) - Sources: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) + +## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) + +## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) @@ -1950,16 +2255,41 @@ France 24/AFP identified Kaminski as Durov's lawyer in the August 2024 French ch - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) - Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) + +## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KADREY-V-META`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) - Sources: [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) - Sources: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) @@ -2012,6 +2342,11 @@ Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil prod - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md) - Sources: [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) @@ -2022,6 +2357,11 @@ Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil prod - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) - Sources: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) +## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) + +- Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) +- Sources: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + ## [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) `related_to` [`CASE-UMG-V-SUNO`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) - Declared in: [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md) diff --git a/website/generated/review-status.md b/website/generated/review-status.md index 991329ec..c9f726e9 100644 --- a/website/generated/review-status.md +++ b/website/generated/review-status.md @@ -4,49 +4,59 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. ## Totals -- Records: 375 -- Records needing review: 259 +- Records: 406 +- Records needing review: 290 - Records missing `last_verified`: 3 ## By Status -- [`draft`](#draft-records): 259 +- [`draft`](#draft-records): 290 - [`verified`](#verified-records): 116 ## By Type - [`attorney`](#attorney-records): 18 -- [`case`](#case-records): 31 +- [`case`](#case-records): 41 - [`historical_event`](#historical-event-records): 4 - [`organization`](#organization-records): 23 - [`person`](#person-records): 30 - [`protocol`](#protocol-records): 3 -- [`source`](#source-records): 232 +- [`source`](#source-records): 253 - [`statute`](#statute-records): 8 - [`technology`](#technology-records): 6 - [`topic`](#topic-records): 20 ## Records Needing Review +- [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) - [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - [`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ: Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md) +- [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md) - [`CASE-CARPENTER-V-US: Carpenter v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CARPENTER-V-US.md) - [`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420: CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md) - [`CASE-CHATRIE-V-US: Chatrie v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CHATRIE-V-US.md) - [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN: Coin Center v. Yellen`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md) - [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) - [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) - [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) +- [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) - [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) +- [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) - [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY: Junger v. Daley`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md) - [`CASE-KADREY-V-META: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) +- [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION: Kneschke v. LAION e.V.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) - [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md) - [`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV: Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md) - [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) - [`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC: Packingham v. North Carolina`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md) - [`CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL: Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL.md) - [`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md) +- [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) - [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER: Thaler v. Perlmutter`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) - [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) @@ -139,10 +149,13 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`PROTOCOL-TLS-13: Transport Layer Security 1.3`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-TLS-13.md) - [`SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED: Alabama HB 161 Enrolled — App Store Accountability Act`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md) - [`SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026: Alston & Bird — Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md) +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) - [`SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026: AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md) - [`SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026: BBC News — Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026.md) +- [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING: Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING.md) - [`SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008: White House — President Bush Signs FISA Amendments Act of 2008`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008.md) - [`SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS: California AB 1043 Bill Status — Chaptered October 13, 2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS.md) @@ -156,14 +169,22 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-BIO: Ian Clarke — Freenet Project Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-BIO.md) - [`SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001: Freenet: A Distributed Anonymous Information Storage and Retrieval System`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001.md) - [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023: Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md) +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-COOLEY-TECH: Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md) - [`SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET: CourtListener Docket — United States v. Tunick (1:25-cr-00499)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET: Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001: DOJ — Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001: DOJ — First DMCA Indictment Against Sklyarov and Elcomsoft (Aug. 28, 2001)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025: SDNY National Security Page — Roman Storm Conviction Note (Aug. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT: United States v. Storm / Semenov Indictment (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT.md) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION: Arne Babenhauserheide — The Path Towards Decentralized Moderation`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md) - [`SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018: Arne Babenhauserheide — Hyphanet Web of Trust Keeps Communication Friendly`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018.md) - [`SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE: EFF Case Page — US v. ElcomSoft / Sklyarov`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE.md) @@ -180,7 +201,11 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) - [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT: GNUnet About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md) +- [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md) - [`SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES: GrapheneOS Features Overview — Duress PIN/Password`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES.md) - [`SRC-GUARDIAN-FREENET-DARK-SIDE-2009: The Guardian — The Dark Side of the Internet (Freenet, 2009)`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-GUARDIAN-FREENET-DARK-SIDE-2009.md) @@ -189,10 +214,14 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME: Freenet Renamed to Hyphanet`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME.md) - [`SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README: Hyphanet Web of Trust Plugin README`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README.md) - [`SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII: 50 U.S.C. § 1702 — International Emergency Economic Powers (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII.md) +- [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025: In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025.md) - [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Sentenced (Nov. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025.md) +- [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) - [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md) - [`SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL: Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) - [`SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA: Louisiana Act No. 185 — App Store Accountability Act (2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA.md) - [`SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS: Encryption backdoors aren't worth the price`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS.md) - [`SRC-LEE-GOVERNMENT-SURVEILLANCE-REFORM: Lee Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Secure Privacy Protections for Americans`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-LEE-GOVERNMENT-SURVEILLANCE-REFORM.md) @@ -203,6 +232,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET: The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) - [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076: OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md) - [`SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321: OFAC Recent Actions — Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md) - [`SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT: OIR Bootstrap Prompt`](source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md) @@ -216,6 +246,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024: Dutch Judiciary English News — Tornado Cash Developer Jail Sentence (May 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024.md) - [`SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV: Rafto Foundation — Agora / Pavel Chikov Prize Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV.md) - [`SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018: RFE/RL — Russian Court Orders Telegram App Blocked (2018)`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018.md) +- [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) - [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md) @@ -296,25 +327,35 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. ## draft Records { #draft-records } +- [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) - [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - [`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ: Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md) +- [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md) - [`CASE-CARPENTER-V-US: Carpenter v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CARPENTER-V-US.md) - [`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420: CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md) - [`CASE-CHATRIE-V-US: Chatrie v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CHATRIE-V-US.md) - [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN: Coin Center v. Yellen`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md) - [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) - [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) - [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) +- [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) - [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) +- [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) - [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY: Junger v. Daley`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md) - [`CASE-KADREY-V-META: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) +- [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION: Kneschke v. LAION e.V.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) - [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md) - [`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV: Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md) - [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) - [`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC: Packingham v. North Carolina`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md) - [`CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL: Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL.md) - [`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md) +- [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) - [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER: Thaler v. Perlmutter`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) - [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) @@ -407,10 +448,13 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`PROTOCOL-TLS-13: Transport Layer Security 1.3`](source-docs/knowledge/technical/PROTOCOL-TLS-13.md) - [`SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED: Alabama HB 161 Enrolled — App Store Accountability Act`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md) - [`SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026: Alston & Bird — Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md) +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) - [`SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026: AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md) - [`SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026: BBC News — Russia Charges Telegram Founder Pavel Durov with Facilitating Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BBC-DUROV-FSB-2026.md) +- [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING: Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING.md) - [`SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008: White House — President Bush Signs FISA Amendments Act of 2008`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BUSH-FISA-SIGNING-2008.md) - [`SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS: California AB 1043 Bill Status — Chaptered October 13, 2025`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CA-AB-1043-STATUS.md) @@ -424,14 +468,22 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-BIO: Ian Clarke — Freenet Project Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-BIO.md) - [`SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001: Freenet: A Distributed Anonymous Information Storage and Retrieval System`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-CLARKE-FREENET-PAPER-2001.md) - [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023: Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md) +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-COOLEY-TECH: Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md) - [`SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET: CourtListener Docket — United States v. Tunick (1:25-cr-00499)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET: Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001: DOJ — Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001: DOJ — First DMCA Indictment Against Sklyarov and Elcomsoft (Aug. 28, 2001)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025: SDNY National Security Page — Roman Storm Conviction Note (Aug. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT: United States v. Storm / Semenov Indictment (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT.md) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION: Arne Babenhauserheide — The Path Towards Decentralized Moderation`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md) - [`SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018: Arne Babenhauserheide — Hyphanet Web of Trust Keeps Communication Friendly`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018.md) - [`SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE: EFF Case Page — US v. ElcomSoft / Sklyarov`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-EFF-SKLYAROV-CASE.md) @@ -448,7 +500,11 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) - [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT: GNUnet About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md) +- [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md) - [`SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES: GrapheneOS Features Overview — Duress PIN/Password`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES.md) - [`SRC-GUARDIAN-FREENET-DARK-SIDE-2009: The Guardian — The Dark Side of the Internet (Freenet, 2009)`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-GUARDIAN-FREENET-DARK-SIDE-2009.md) @@ -457,10 +513,14 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME: Freenet Renamed to Hyphanet`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-HYPHANET-RENAME.md) - [`SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README: Hyphanet Web of Trust Plugin README`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-HYPHANET-WOT-README.md) - [`SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII: 50 U.S.C. § 1702 — International Emergency Economic Powers (Cornell LII)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IEEPA-50-USC-1702-LII.md) +- [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025: In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025.md) - [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Sentenced (Nov. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025.md) +- [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) - [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md) - [`SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL: Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) - [`SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA: Louisiana Act No. 185 — App Store Accountability Act (2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA.md) - [`SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS: Encryption backdoors aren't worth the price`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-LEE-ENCRYPTION-BACKDOORS.md) - [`SRC-LEE-GOVERNMENT-SURVEILLANCE-REFORM: Lee Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Secure Privacy Protections for Americans`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-LEE-GOVERNMENT-SURVEILLANCE-REFORM.md) @@ -471,6 +531,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET: The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) - [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076: OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md) - [`SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321: OFAC Recent Actions — Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md) - [`SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT: OIR Bootstrap Prompt`](source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md) @@ -484,6 +545,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024: Dutch Judiciary English News — Tornado Cash Developer Jail Sentence (May 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-PERTSEV-RECHTSPRAAK-EN-2024.md) - [`SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV: Rafto Foundation — Agora / Pavel Chikov Prize Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-RAFTO-AGORA-CHIKOV.md) - [`SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018: RFE/RL — Russian Court Orders Telegram App Blocked (2018)`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-RFERL-TELEGRAM-BLOCK-2018.md) +- [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) - [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md) @@ -698,25 +760,35 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. ## case Records { #case-records } +- [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) - [`CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - [`CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ: Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BERNSTEIN-V-DOJ.md) +- [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - [`CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS.md) - [`CASE-CARPENTER-V-US: Carpenter v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CARPENTER-V-US.md) - [`CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420: CCIA v. Paxton (Texas SB 2420 / App Store Accountability Act)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CCIA-V-PAXTON-SB2420.md) - [`CASE-CHATRIE-V-US: Chatrie v. United States`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CHATRIE-V-US.md) - [`CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN: Coin Center v. Yellen`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-COIN-CENTER-V-YELLEN.md) - [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) +- [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) +- [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) +- [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) - [`CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) - [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI: GEMA v. OpenAI (LG München I)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) +- [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) - [`CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md) +- [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) +- [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) - [`CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY: Junger v. Daley`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY.md) - [`CASE-KADREY-V-META: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) +- [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION: Kneschke v. LAION e.V.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) - [`CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL.md) - [`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV: Netherlands v. Pertsev (Tornado Cash)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md) - [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp. (OpenAI)`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) - [`CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC: Packingham v. North Carolina`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC.md) - [`CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL: Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-PERFECT10-V-CCBILL.md) - [`CASE-RENO-V-ACLU: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-RENO-V-ACLU.md) +- [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) - [`CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) - [`CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER: Thaler v. Perlmutter`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER.md) - [`CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) @@ -810,6 +882,8 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-ACLU-HISTORY: American Civil Liberties Union History Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-ACLU-HISTORY.md) - [`SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED: Alabama HB 161 Enrolled — App Store Accountability Act`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AL-HB161-ENROLLED.md) - [`SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026: Alston & Bird — Challenge to Utah ASAA Voluntarily Dismissed (April 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ALSTON-UTAH-ASAA-DISMISSAL-2026.md) +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) - [`SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026: AP News — Russia Accuses Telegram CEO Pavel Durov of Aiding Terrorism`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-AP-DUROV-FSB-2026.md) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md) @@ -820,6 +894,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA: Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA.md) - [`SRC-BHANDARI-ACLU: Esha Bhandari ACLU Staff Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BHANDARI-ACLU.md) - [`SRC-BLAZE-GEORGETOWN: Matt Blaze Georgetown Faculty Profile`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BLAZE-GEORGETOWN.md) +- [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING: Booker Announces Introduction of Bill to Ban Surveillance Advertising`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOOKER-SURVEILLANCE-ADVERTISING.md) - [`SRC-BOYD-MSR: danah boyd Microsoft Research Profile`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-BOYD-MSR.md) - [`SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (GovInfo)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO.md) @@ -848,6 +923,8 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE: EFF Press Release - Cindy Cohn Stepping Down`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-EFF-DEPARTURE.md) - [`SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE: FOSS Force - Cohn Returns to the Courtroom`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-COHN-FOSSFORCE.md) - [`SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023: Coin Center v. Yellen, No. 3:22-cv-20375 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COIN-CENTER-YELLEN-NDFLA-2023.md) +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-COOLEY-TECH: Cooley Technology Industry Practice Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-COOLEY-TECH.md) @@ -855,10 +932,16 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-CORLEY-LII: Universal City Studios v. Corley Opinion Text (Open Casebook)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CORLEY-LII.md) - [`SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET: CourtListener Docket — United States v. Tunick (1:25-cr-00499)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-COURTLISTENER-TUNICK-DOCKET.md) - [`SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC: Whitfield Diffie Stanford CISAC Profile`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DIFFIE-CISAC.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET: Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001: DOJ — Sklyarov Enters Agreement in First DMCA Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2001)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-AGREE-2001.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001: DOJ — First DMCA Indictment Against Sklyarov and Elcomsoft (Aug. 28, 2001)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-SKLYAROV-INDICTMENT-2001.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025: SDNY National Security Page — Roman Storm Conviction Note (Aug. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-CONVICTION-2025.md) - [`SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT: United States v. Storm / Semenov Indictment (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOJ-STORM-INDICTMENT.md) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION: Arne Babenhauserheide — The Path Towards Decentralized Moderation`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-DECENTRALIZED-MODERATION.md) - [`SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018: Arne Babenhauserheide — Hyphanet Web of Trust Keeps Communication Friendly`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-DRAKETO-WOT-FRIENDLY-2018.md) - [`SRC-EFF-ABOUT: Electronic Frontier Foundation About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-EFF-ABOUT.md) @@ -884,7 +967,11 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) - [`SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT: GNUnet About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-GNUNET-ABOUT.md) +- [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md) - [`SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO: Jennifer Granick ACLU Staff Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-GRANICK-ACLU-BIO.md) - [`SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES: GrapheneOS Features Overview — Duress PIN/Password`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-GRAPHENEOS-FEATURES.md) @@ -898,10 +985,12 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US: Institute for Free Speech About Us Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-IFS-ABOUT-US.md) - [`SRC-IJ-ABOUT: Institute for Justice About Us Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-IJ-ABOUT.md) - [`SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT: Institute for Justice First Amendment Practice Area`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-IJ-FIRST-AMENDMENT.md) +- [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025: In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Plead Guilty (July 30, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-PLEA-2025.md) - [`SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025: IRS-CI — Samourai Wallet Founders Sentenced (Nov. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IRS-SAMOURAI-SENTENCE-2025.md) - [`SRC-JAFFER-KNIGHT: Jameel Jaffer Knight Institute Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-JAFFER-KNIGHT.md) - [`SRC-JEWEL-V-NSA-EFF: EFF Jewel v. NSA Case Page - Supreme Court Rejection`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JEWEL-V-NSA-EFF.md) +- [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) - [`SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO: Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md) - [`SRC-JUNGER-CMU: Junger v. Daley Opinion Text (CMU)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-CMU.md) - [`SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER: Kademlia: A Peer-to-Peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric`](source-docs/bibliography/academic/SRC-KADEMLIA-PAPER.md) @@ -909,6 +998,8 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-KAHN-CNRI: Robert E. Kahn CNRI Biography`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAHN-CNRI.md) - [`SRC-KAY-CHM: Alan Kay Computer History Museum Profile`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KAY-CHM.md) - [`SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL: Rep. Khanna Releases Internet Bill of Rights Principles Endorsed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee`](source-docs/bibliography/people/SRC-KHANNA-INTERNET-BILL.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) - [`SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT: Knight First Amendment Institute About Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-KNIGHT-ABOUT.md) - [`SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT: Knight First Amendment Institute Contact and FAQ Page`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-KNIGHT-CONTACT.md) - [`SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA: Louisiana Act No. 185 — App Store Accountability Act (2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LA-ACT-185-ASAA.md) @@ -928,6 +1019,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET: The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) - [`SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076: OFAC FAQ 1076 — Prohibitions Resulting from Tornado Cash Designation`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-FAQ-1076.md) - [`SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321: OFAC Recent Actions — Cyber-related Designation Removal (Mar. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-OFAC-TC-REMOVAL-20250321.md) - [`SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT: OIR Bootstrap Prompt`](source-docs/bibliography/imported/SRC-OIR-BOOTSTRAP-PROMPT.md) @@ -974,6 +1066,7 @@ This page is generated from OIR metadata. Do not edit it manually. - [`SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET: The Double Ratchet Algorithm`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-DOUBLE-RATCHET.md) - [`SRC-SIGNAL-HOME: Signal Official Website`](source-docs/bibliography/organizations/SRC-SIGNAL-HOME.md) - [`SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH: The X3DH Key Agreement Protocol`](source-docs/bibliography/technical/SRC-SIGNAL-X3DH.md) +- [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) - [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-10248)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-DOCKET.md) diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..911629ee --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET +title: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201) +type: source +status: draft +summary: CourtListener docket for the visual-artists putative class action against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener / PACER) +- Publication date: 2023-01-13 +- Source type: Public docket +- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66732129/andersen-v-stability-ai-ltd/ +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP for No. 3:23-cv-00201. Reliable for filing date, later docket events, and the August 12, 2024 MTD-order entry as of the access date. Not a substitute for the order PDF or later operative complaints. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](../../../used-for.md#case-andersen-v-stability) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2023-01-13` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..8b34ac6c --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 +title: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Northern District of California order allowing artists’ Copyright Act and some Lanham Act claims against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway to proceed, while dismissing DMCA claims with prejudice. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge William H. Orrick) +- Publication date: 2024-08-12 +- Source type: District court order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.407208/gov.uscourts.cand.407208.223.0_3.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the August 12, 2024 order in No. 23-cv-00201-WHO, reported as 744 F. Supp. 3d 956. Primary authority for pleading-stage holdings on the first amended complaint. The order recites alleged FAC facts and is not a fair-use merits ruling. Later amended complaints and discovery orders are not this source. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](../../../used-for.md#case-andersen-v-stability) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2024-08-12` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1f2a7c75 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +--- +id: SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +title: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: BMG publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works, and removed copyright management information. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC (plaintiff filing) +- Publication date: 2026-03-17 +- Source type: District court complaint (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.466061/gov.uscourts.cand.466061.1.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 5:26-cv-02334. Primary for filing date, claims, and BMG’s identification of Concord I and Concord II as related actions. Allegations are not found facts. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`](../../../used-for.md#case-bmg-v-anthropic) +- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2026-03-17` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..677b5674 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +--- +id: SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT +title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Second Concord/UMG/ABKCO publisher complaint against Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann alleging torrenting of books containing musical compositions and later Claude training and outputs. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (Concord II) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing) +- Publication date: 2026-01-28 +- Source type: District court complaint (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.463362/gov.uscourts.cand.463362.1.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 5:26-cv-00880. Primary for filing date, named defendants, and alleged torrenting and later-model training theories. Later amended complaints are not this source. Allegations are not found facts. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](../../../used-for.md#case-concord-v-anthropic) +- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2026-01-28` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..6551f1ca --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 +title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Order relating Concord II (No. 5:26-cv-00880) to Concord I (No. 5:24-cv-03811) before Judge Eumi K. Lee. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Eumi K. Lee) +- Publication date: 2026-02-18 +- Source type: District court order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.463362/gov.uscourts.cand.463362.57.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the February 18, 2026 related-case order. Primary for the court’s finding that No. 26-cv-00880 is related to No. 24-cv-03811-EKL and reassignment to Judge Lee. Not a merits ruling. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](../../../used-for.md#case-concord-v-anthropic) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2026-02-18` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2af97286 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT +title: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Studio complaint alleging that Midjourney copied Disney and Universal character works to train an image generator and that the service outputs unauthorized reproductions and derivatives. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al. (plaintiff filing) +- Publication date: 2025-06-11 +- Source type: District court complaint (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999.1.0_3.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal.). Primary source for what the Disney and Universal plaintiffs alleged at filing, not for the truth of disputed facts. The later Warner Bros. action and consolidation are not this source. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](../../../used-for.md#case-disney-v-midjourney) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2025-06-11` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a41dc950 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026 +title: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Magistrate discovery order in the consolidated Disney/Universal/Warner Bros. action against Midjourney, limiting compelled production of the studios’ own generative-AI materials to consumer-facing uses of the asserted works. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Central District of California (Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin) +- Publication date: 2026-06-15 +- Source type: District court discovery order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999/gov.uscourts.cacd.973999.88.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the June 15, 2026 memorandum decision in No. 2:25-cv-05275-JAK-AJR. Primary for consolidation of the Warner Bros. action, the identity of the Warner Bros. Discovery plaintiffs, and the limited grant of Midjourney’s motion to compel. It is not a fair-use or infringement merits ruling. Midjourney later sought district-judge review of the order; that motion is not this source. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`](../../../used-for.md#case-disney-v-midjourney) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2026-06-15` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..cfa02a5f --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET +title: Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Ninth Circuit CourtListener docket for the interlocutory appeal from the Northern District of California Copilot / GitHub copyright-management-information order. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - open-source-software +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Doe v. GitHub, Inc., Ninth Circuit CourtListener docket + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (via CourtListener / PACER) +- Publication date: 2024-12-23 +- Source type: Public appellate docket +- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69495342/doe-et-al-v-github-inc-et-al/ +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +CourtListener docket for No. 24-7700. Reliable for the appeal’s opening from N.D. Cal. No. 4:22-cv-06823-JST, the December 23, 2024 case-opening date, and the February 11, 2026 oral-argument date as of the access date. The docket does not itself contain an appellate opinion. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](../../../used-for.md#case-doe-v-github) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2024-12-23` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..115fb9e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 +title: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice open-source developers’ DMCA § 1202(b) claims against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI entities, while allowing breach-of-open-source-license claims to proceed. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - open-source-software +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Jon S. Tigar) +- Publication date: 2024-06-24 +- Source type: District court order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.403220/gov.uscourts.cand.403220.253.0_1.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the June 24, 2024 order in No. 22-cv-06823-JST. Primary authority for dismissal with prejudice of the § 1202(b) claim and survival of the open-source-license contract claim. The order is a pleading decision, not a holding that Copilot training is or is not fair use. The Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal is not this source. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](../../../used-for.md#case-doe-v-github) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2024-06-24` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a079d680 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET +title: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984) +type: source +status: draft +summary: CourtListener docket for the Wall Street Journal and New York Post copyright action against Perplexity AI. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener / PACER) +- Publication date: 2024-10-21 +- Source type: Public docket +- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69280523/dow-jones-company-inc-v-perplexity-ai-inc/ +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +CourtListener docket compiled from PACER/RECAP for No. 1:24-cv-07984. Reliable for the October 21, 2024 filing date and later docket events as of the access date. Not a substitute for the August 21, 2025 opinion. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](../../../used-for.md#case-dow-jones-v-perplexity) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2024-10-21` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2637f1fa --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 +title: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Southern District of New York opinion denying Perplexity’s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, denying transfer, and allowing later-registered works to remain in the case. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Katherine Polk Failla) +- Publication date: 2025-08-21 +- Source type: District court opinion (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.630270/gov.uscourts.nysd.630270.65.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the August 21, 2025 Opinion & Order in No. 24 Civ. 7984 (KPF), also reported as 797 F. Supp. 3d 305. Primary for parties, claims in the second amended complaint, personal-jurisdiction and venue holdings, and denial of the § 411(a) challenge to ten later-registered works. Not a fair-use merits ruling. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](../../../used-for.md#case-dow-jones-v-perplexity) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2025-08-21` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b0620f8e --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 +title: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) +type: source +status: draft +summary: High Court of England and Wales trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary copyright claim against Stable Diffusion and finding limited historic trade-mark infringement from generated watermarks. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property List (ChD) (Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE) +- Publication date: 2025-11-04 +- Source type: First-instance judgment (PDF) +- URL: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Getty-Images-v-Stability-AI.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Official judiciary.uk PDF of the approved public judgment in claim IL-2023-000007, also cited as [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch). Primary authority for the holdings summarized on the case page. It is English law, not a U.S. fair-use decision. The judgment records that Getty abandoned primary training and output copyright claims before closing submissions. A later permission-to-appeal ruling, [2025] EWHC 3343 (Ch), is not this source. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](../../../used-for.md#case-getty-v-stability) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2025-11-04` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0c12504f --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT +title: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Getty Images complaint alleging that Stability AI copied millions of Getty photographs to train Stable Diffusion and infringed copyrights and trademarks. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Getty Images (US), Inc. (plaintiff filing) +- Publication date: 2025-08-14 +- Source type: District court complaint (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454636/gov.uscourts.cand.454636.1.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the original complaint in No. 3:25-cv-06891 (N.D. Cal.). Primary for what Getty alleged at filing, including a list of 25,647 example registered images. Not evidence of the truth of disputed facts. The Delaware predecessor action is not this source. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](../../../used-for.md#case-getty-v-stability) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2025-08-14` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..b08b609c --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 +title: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Northern District of California order dismissing Getty’s DMCA § 1202(a) false-CMI claim without prejudice and allowing trademark and California unfair-competition claims to proceed. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Trina L. Thompson) +- Publication date: 2026-04-23 +- Source type: District court order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.454636/gov.uscourts.cand.454636.53.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the April 23, 2026 order in No. 25-cv-06891-TLT. Primary for dismissal without prejudice of Count II (§ 1202(a)) and denial of the motion as to trademark and California UCL claims. The order is not a fair-use merits ruling on the copyright-infringement count. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](../../../used-for.md#case-getty-v-stability) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2026-04-23` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..990bb7fc --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 +title: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Northern District of California order dismissing with prejudice direct-infringement claims as to specified Google models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, while leaving training claims as to Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related models for later stages. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Eumi K. Lee) +- Publication date: 2025-09-11 +- Source type: District court order (PDF) +- URL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.415223/gov.uscourts.cand.415223.216.0.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +RECAP copy of the September 11, 2025 order in Master File No. 23-cv-03440-EKL. Primary for consolidation history (Leovy and Zhang), surviving and dismissed models, and dismissal with prejudice of vicarious claims against Alphabet. Not a fair-use merits ruling. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](../../../used-for.md#case-in-re-google-gen-ai) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2025-09-11` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c0d96f9f --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 +title: In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Southern District of New York order holding that author class plaintiffs adequately pleaded ChatGPT output-based copyright infringement, without deciding fair use. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Sidney H. Stein) +- Publication date: 2025-10-27 +- Source type: District court opinion (PDF) +- URL: https://www.loeb.com/-/media/files/pdfs/2025-pdfs/ip-entertainment-pdfs/in-re-openai-motion-to-dismiss-opinion.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Law-firm hosted copy of the October 27, 2025 Opinion & Order in 25-md-3143, captioned as relating to putative class actions including Authors Guild, No. 23-cv-8292. Primary for the pleading-stage holding that some alleged ChatGPT outputs could be found substantially similar, and for the court’s statement that it decided no fair-use question. Not a substitute for the PACER original. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](../../../used-for.md#case-in-re-openai) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2025-10-27` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..347678fc --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 +title: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation order centralizing OpenAI copyright actions in the Southern District of New York before Judge Sidney H. Stein. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation +- Publication date: 2025-03 +- Source type: JPML transfer order (PDF) +- URL: https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3143-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Official JPML PDF of the Transfer Order in MDL No. 3143. Primary for centralization in the Southern District of New York, assignment to Judge Sidney H. Stein, and Schedule A listing the twelve constituent actions. The filename indicates a March 2025 issuance; the order itself is the authority for the transfer, not for later merits rulings. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](../../../used-for.md#case-in-re-openai) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2025-03` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..69db014b --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 +title: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Hamburg Regional Court first-instance judgment dismissing a photographer’s claim against LAION, holding that downloading an image to build a training dataset was covered by the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Landgericht Hamburg, 10. Zivilkammer +- Publication date: 2024-09-27 +- Source type: First-instance judgment (HTML reprint) +- URL: https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/c8o-27-09-2024-310-o-22723/ +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Commercial reprint of LG Hamburg, Urteil vom 27.09.2024, Az. 310 O 227/23. Primary for the tenor (complaint dismissed) and the court’s holding that the reproduction was covered by the scientific-research TDM exception (the reprint discusses § 60d UrhG; § 44b was left undecided). Not an official court PDF. The WIPO informal English case summary is a secondary cross-check, not this record. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](../../../used-for.md#case-kneschke-v-laion) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2024-09-27` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9cafa303 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +--- +id: SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 +title: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Hanseatic Higher Regional Court report that the photographer’s appeal was dismissed and that LAION’s dataset download was covered by both § 44b and § 60d UrhG. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg, 5 U 104/24 + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (as reported in Medien Internet und Recht) +- Publication date: 2025-12-10 +- Source type: Court decision report / press reprint +- URL: https://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=3526 +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Medien Internet und Recht reprint of an OLG Hamburg decision report for Urteil vom 10.12.2025, 5 U 104/24, affirming LG Hamburg 310 O 227/23. Primary for the appellate caption, dismissal of the appeal, and the reported holdings that both § 44b and § 60d UrhG applied, including that the opt-out was not effective as machine-readable. Not a substitute for the official judgment PDF. BGH review, if any, is outside this source. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](../../../used-for.md#case-kneschke-v-laion) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2025-12-10` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5f1efafa --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +--- +id: SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET +title: The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106) +type: source +status: draft +summary: CourtListener docket for the New York Times copyright and trademark action against Perplexity AI, filed December 5, 2025. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via CourtListener / PACER) +- Publication date: 2025-12-05 +- Source type: Public docket +- URL: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71997720/the-new-york-times-company-v-perplexity-ai-inc/ +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +CourtListener docket for No. 1:25-cv-10106. Reliable for the December 5, 2025 complaint filing against Perplexity AI, Inc. Not a substitute for the complaint PDF or any later merits order. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](../../../used-for.md#case-dow-jones-v-perplexity) +- [`CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`](../../../used-for.md#case-nyt-v-openai) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2025-12-05` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..00923a34 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +--- +id: SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 +title: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) +type: source +status: draft +summary: Music-publisher complaint alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude, and that outputs reproduce those compositions. +tags: + - source + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence +sources: [] +relationships: [] +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md` +- Source ID: `SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026) + +!!! info "🚧 Page Status: Early draft — needs sources and review" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 0 + - **Relationships**: 0 + - **Research debt items**: 0 + +--- + +# Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026) + +## Bibliographic Metadata + +- Author or issuing body: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC, Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. (plaintiff filing) +- Publication date: 2026-08-28 +- Source type: District court complaint (PDF) +- URL: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Sony-v-Anthropic-Complaint-8-28-26.pdf +- Archive URL: None recorded +- Access date: 2026-09-02 + +## Reliability Notes + +Journalist-hosted copy of the PACER complaint bearing Case 5:26-cv-09217, Document 1, filed August 28, 2026. Primary for what the publisher plaintiffs alleged at filing, including counts and the named defendants. Not a substitute for a RECAP/PACER original, and not evidence of the truth of disputed facts. No merits order is recorded in this source. + +## Used For + +- [`CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`](../../../used-for.md#case-sony-v-anthropic) +- [`TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-music-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-copyright) +- [`TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`](../../../used-for.md#topic-ai-litigation) + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` +- Publication date: `2026-08-28` +- Access date: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..270c04cd --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +--- +id: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY +title: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: cites + object: SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2024-08-12" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md` +- Source ID: `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY) + +!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 3 + - **Relationships**: 6 + - **Research debt items**: 3 + +--- + +# Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd. + +## Summary + +Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., No. 3:23-cv-00201 (N.D. Cal.), is a putative class action by visual artists against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway AI over alleged copying of training images into Stable Diffusion and related products. On August 12, 2024, Judge William H. Orrick denied motions to dismiss the Copyright Act claims, denied Midjourney’s motion to dismiss Lanham Act claims, dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, and dismissed unjust-enrichment and DeviantArt contract claims (the latter with prejudice). The order is a pleading decision, not a fair-use holding. + +## Verified Facts + +- The action was filed January 13, 2023, in the Northern District of California as No. 3:23-cv-00201.[^2] +- The first amended complaint names artists including Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, Hawke Southworth, Grzegorz Rutkowski, Gregory Manchess, Gerald Brom, Jingna Zhang, Julia Kaye, and Adam Ellis, and alleges that Stable Diffusion used their artistic works as training images and can produce outputs “in the style” of those images.[^1] +- Defendants addressed in the August 12, 2024 order are Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc., Midjourney, Inc., DeviantArt, Inc., and Runway AI, Inc.[^1] +- Plaintiffs allege that LAION training sets were used to train versions of Stable Diffusion, that the LAION-5B dataset contains URLs rather than image files, and that anyone using that dataset must first acquire copies of the images from those URLs.[^1] +- On August 12, 2024, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the Copyright Act claims, denied Midjourney’s motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claims, dismissed the DMCA claims with prejudice, dismissed unjust-enrichment claims with leave to amend, and dismissed DeviantArt’s breach-of-contract and implied-covenant claims with prejudice.[^1] + + +[^1]: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024) — Order (Aug. 12, 2024). Primary for FAC parties, alleged theories, and holdings. + +[^2]: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET) — CourtListener docket for No. 3:23-cv-00201. Primary for filing date. + +[^3]: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025) — Order (Sept. 11, 2025). Primary for named-plaintiff overlap with the Google class action. + +## Historical Context + +Andersen is the leading U.S. visual-artist class action in the generative-image wave. It is distinct from [Getty Images v. Stability AI](CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md), an English trial about secondary copyright and watermarks, and from [Disney v. Midjourney](CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md), a studio character-output case. Named plaintiff Sarah Andersen also appears in [In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md), a different docket.[^3] The August 2024 order cited the identicality approach from [Doe v. GitHub](CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) when dismissing DMCA claims.[^1] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: Rule 12(b)(6) order. The court did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) fair use.[^1] + +What survived is a training-copy and induced-infringement theory plus some Lanham Act “in the style of” claims against Midjourney. What did not survive is DMCA copyright-management-information removal, on an identical-copy requirement the court treated as fatal where outputs were not identical to training images.[^1] Later amended complaints and any class-certification or summary-judgment orders are outside the sources cited here. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` cites [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024). +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`. +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`. +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`. +- `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`. + +## Sources + +1. [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024): Order on motions to dismiss FAC (Aug. 12, 2024). +2. [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET): CourtListener docket for No. 3:23-cv-00201. +3. [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025): In re Google Generative AI MTD order (Sept. 11, 2025). + +## Research Debt + +- Add the original complaint, the FAC, and any later operative complaint as pleading sources. +- Add the October 30, 2023 first MTD order and later discovery or class-certification orders from those PDFs. +- Add trial-schedule facts only from a court scheduling order, not from secondary trackers. + +## Document metadata + +- Decision date: `2024-08-12` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5273e5ba --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +--- +id: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC +title: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed March 17, 2026, alleging that Anthropic copied BMG musical compositions to train Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed copyright management information. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +relationships: + - subject: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: cites + object: SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT + - subject: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT + - subject: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md` +- Source ID: `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC) + +!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 1 + - **Relationships**: 3 + - **Research debt items**: 2 + +--- + +# BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC + +## Summary + +BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:26-cv-02334 (N.D. Cal.), is a music-publisher copyright action filed March 17, 2026. BMG alleges that Anthropic copied BMG compositions as training inputs and outputs of Claude, torrented some works from pirate libraries, and removed or altered copyright management information. The complaint is allegations only and identifies [Concord I and Concord II](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) as related actions against the same defendant. + +## Verified Facts + +- On March 17, 2026, BMG Rights Management (US) LLC filed a complaint in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, No. 5:26-cv-02334, against Anthropic PBC, demanding a jury trial.[^1] +- The complaint pleads, among other claims, copyright infringement in training and output, direct copyright infringement by torrenting, and removal or alteration of copyright management information.[^1] +- BMG alleges that the action concerns substantially the same defendant, property, and events as Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:24-cv-03811 (Concord I) and No. 5:26-cv-00880 (Concord II), and states that it anticipated an administrative motion to relate the cases under Civil Local Rule 3-12.[^1] + + +[^1]: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT) — Complaint (Mar. 17, 2026). Primary for parties, docket number, claims, and related-case allegations. + +## Historical Context + +BMG is a third U.S. publisher catalog in the Northern District of California lyric-and-piracy cluster, after Concord/UMG/ABKCO and the later [Sony/Warner publishers](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md). It is a composition case, not a sound-recording case against a music generator. + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: complaint only. No source cited here decides [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) or personal liability of Anthropic founders; unlike Concord II and Sony/Warner, this caption names Anthropic PBC alone.[^1] + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` cites [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT). +- `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`. + +## Sources + +1. [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT): BMG complaint (Mar. 17, 2026). + +## Research Debt + +- Add any related-case order, motion to dismiss, or answer from those PDFs. +- Add Exhibit A/B work lists only if OIR needs the asserted-work count from the exhibits themselves. + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md index d6ee7e02..af7eee0f 100644 --- a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ id: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC title: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC type: case status: draft -summary: Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims. +summary: Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions. tags: - case - copyright @@ -12,6 +12,10 @@ tags: sources: - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET + - SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT + - SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 - SRC-USC-17-107-LII relationships: - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC @@ -19,6 +23,11 @@ relationships: object: SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 sources: - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: cites + object: SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 + sources: + - SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC predicate: related_to object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT @@ -34,7 +43,17 @@ relationships: object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI sources: - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" decision_date: "2025-10-06" --- @@ -49,9 +68,9 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside !!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" - **Status**: `draft` - - **Sources**: 3 - - **Relationships**: 4 - - **Research debt items**: 4 + - **Sources**: 7 + - **Relationships**: 7 + - **Research debt items**: 5 --- @@ -59,7 +78,9 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside ## Summary -Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.), is music-publisher litigation over song lyrics and Anthropic’s Claude models. After an initial dismissal of secondary-infringement and DMCA claims with leave to amend, Judge Eumi K. Lee on October 6, 2025 denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Direct infringement, contributory and vicarious infringement, and DMCA copyright-management-information claims therefore proceeded past that pleading stage. The case is about musical compositions (lyrics), not sound-recording masters. +Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.) (Concord I), is music-publisher litigation over song lyrics and Anthropic’s Claude models. After an initial dismissal of secondary-infringement and DMCA claims with leave to amend, Judge Eumi K. Lee on October 6, 2025 denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Direct infringement, contributory and vicarious infringement, and DMCA copyright-management-information claims therefore proceeded past that pleading stage. The case is about musical compositions (lyrics), not sound-recording masters. + +A second action, No. 5:26-cv-00880 (Concord II), was filed January 28, 2026, against Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann. Publishers allege torrenting of pirated books that contained their compositions after the court denied leave to add those claims to Concord I. On February 18, 2026, the court related Concord II to Concord I. Concord II is allegations only. ## Verified Facts @@ -70,45 +91,67 @@ Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal.), is musi - Claims in the FAC are (I) direct copyright infringement, (II) contributory infringement, (III) vicarious infringement, and (IV) removal or alteration of CMI under the DMCA.[^1] - On March 26, 2025, the court granted Anthropic’s first motion to dismiss the secondary-infringement and CMI claims, with leave to amend. Publishers filed the FAC on April 25, 2025. Anthropic moved again on May 9, 2025.[^1] - On October 6, 2025, the court denied the second motion to dismiss in full, holding that the FAC plausibly alleged contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and DMCA § 1202(b)(1) and (b)(3) claims, and ordered Anthropic to answer within 14 days after a ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.[^1] +- On January 28, 2026, the same publisher group filed Concord II, No. 5:26-cv-00880, against Anthropic PBC, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann. The complaint alleges that publishers moved to amend Concord I to add torrenting claims after Bartz public filings revealed alleged LibGen and PiLiMi downloads, that Anthropic opposed amendment as transforming Concord I, and that publishers therefore brought a separate action.[^3] +- Concord II pleads (I) direct copyright infringement by torrenting against all defendants; (II) direct copyright infringement in training and output; (III) contributory infringement against Anthropic; (IV) vicarious infringement against Anthropic; and (V) removal or alteration of copyright management information.[^3] +- On February 18, 2026, Judge Lee found Concord II related to Concord I and reassigned No. 26-cv-00880 to herself.[^4] -[^1]: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025) — Order denying MTD (Oct. 6, 2025). Primary for parties, claims, procedural history, alleged FAC facts, and holdings. +[^1]: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025) — Order denying MTD (Oct. 6, 2025). Primary for parties, claims, procedural history, alleged FAC facts, and Concord I holdings. [^2]: [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET) — CourtListener docket for No. 5:24-cv-03811. Primary for original Tennessee filing date and transfer caption. +[^3]: [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT) — Concord II complaint (Jan. 28, 2026). Primary for Concord II parties, counts, and alleged torrenting theory. + +[^4]: [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026) — Related-case order (Feb. 18, 2026). Primary for relation to Concord I. + +[^5]: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT) — BMG complaint (Mar. 17, 2026). Primary for BMG’s related-case allegation. + +[^6]: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026) — Sony/Warner complaint (Aug. 28, 2026). Primary for that complaint’s reference to Concord I and Concord II. + ## Historical Context -Concord is the leading U.S. publisher suit about lyrics in large language models, distinct from the label suits against [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings) and from [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (books and a pirated-library settlement). The October 2025 order is a pleading decision, not a fair-use holding. +Concord is the leading U.S. publisher suit about lyrics in large language models, distinct from the label suits against [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings) and from [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (books and a pirated-library settlement). The October 2025 order is a pleading decision, not a fair-use holding. Concord II imports Bartz’s alleged torrenting facts into a composition catalog. [BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) later identified both Concord dockets as related, and [Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) refers to Concord I and Concord II.[^5][^6] ## Legal Analysis -Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: Rule 12(b)(6) order. The court accepted FAC allegations as true for that motion and did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md).[^1] +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: Rule 12(b)(6) order in Concord I; complaint and related-case order in Concord II. The court accepted FAC allegations as true for the Concord I motion and did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md).[^1] Two points matter for the rest of the AI-copyright map. First, the works are short, highly memorable lyrics. Publishers allege regurgitation from simple prompts, which is closer to the output-substitution theory in [Times v. OpenAI](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) than to Bartz’s purchased-book training holding.[^1] Second, the court allowed DMCA CMI claims to proceed on allegations that Anthropic chose a stripping algorithm and distributed lyrics without CMI while concealing its own infringement, distinguishing Tremblay’s third-party-user framing.[^1] -A related later action, Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:26-cv-00880 (N.D. Cal.), appears on CourtListener as filed January 28, 2026. This page does not treat that docket’s allegations as found facts. +Concord II is a different theory: alleged pirated acquisition and distribution of books containing compositions, plus later training and output claims, with individual founder defendants. Naming Amodei and Mann is a pleading choice, not a finding of personal liability. This page does not treat alleged LibGen or PiLiMi downloads as found facts, and it does not record any later stay or merits order in Concord II.[^3][^4] ## Relationships - `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` cites [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025). +- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` cites [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026). - `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`. - `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. - `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`. +- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`. ## Sources 1. [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025): Order denying motion to dismiss FAC (Oct. 6, 2025). 2. [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET): CourtListener docket for No. 5:24-cv-03811. -3. [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107. +3. [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT): Concord II complaint (Jan. 28, 2026). +4. [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026): Related-case order (Feb. 18, 2026). +5. [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT): BMG complaint (Mar. 17, 2026). +6. [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026): Sony/Warner publisher complaint (Aug. 28, 2026). + +Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes): + +- [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107. ## Research Debt - Add the original Tennessee complaint, the FAC, and any second amended complaint as operative-pleading sources. - Add the March 26, 2025 dismissal order and any preliminary-injunction ruling from primary PDFs. -- Add No. 5:26-cv-00880 (and any BMG publisher action) from those complaints, not trackers. -- Add Anthropic’s answer and any later merits order. +- Add Anthropic’s answer and any later merits order in Concord I or Concord II. +- The later Sony/Warner publisher action is [CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md); BMG is [CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md). +- Do not treat party joint-status letters as a holding that a stay was granted or denied. ## Document metadata - Decision date: `2025-10-06` -- Last verified: `2026-08-22` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f7dbc33e --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +--- +id: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY +title: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc. +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Central District of California copyright action by Disney, Universal, and later-consolidated Warner Bros. Discovery parties alleging that Midjourney copied studio character works to train an image and video generator and that outputs reproduce those characters. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + predicate: cites + object: SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - subject: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - subject: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md` +- Source ID: `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY) + +!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 2 + - **Relationships**: 3 + - **Research debt items**: 3 + +--- + +# Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc. + +## Summary + +Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05275 (C.D. Cal.), is studio copyright litigation over Midjourney’s image (and planned video) generation service. Disney and Universal filed on June 11, 2025, alleging direct and secondary infringement of character works. A later Warner Bros. Discovery action was consolidated into the Disney docket for all purposes including trial. As of the June 15, 2026 discovery order, the case had no fair-use merits ruling. + +## Verified Facts + +- Disney Enterprises, Inc., Marvel Characters, Inc., MVL Film Finance LLC, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, and DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. filed a complaint on June 11, 2025, against Midjourney, Inc. in the Central District of California, No. 2:25-cv-05275.[^1] +- The complaint pleads direct copyright infringement and secondary copyright infringement and demands a jury trial. It alleges that Midjourney’s commercial image service generates unauthorized copies and derivatives of plaintiffs’ characters, including examples such as Darth Vader, Elsa, Lightning McQueen, Buzz Lightyear, Iron Man, and Homer Simpson, and that Midjourney ignored cease-and-desist correspondence.[^1] +- Plaintiffs allege they never authorized Midjourney to reproduce, display, distribute, or make derivatives of the works listed in Exhibits A and B, and they seek damages or statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and injunctive relief.[^1] +- Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., DC Comics, Turner Entertainment Co., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., and The Cartoon Network, Inc. filed a second action, No. 2:25-cv-08376. The parties stipulated to consolidate that action into No. 2:25-cv-05275 for all purposes including trial.[^2] +- On June 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin granted in part and denied in part Midjourney’s motion to compel. The order directed plaintiffs to produce documents sufficient to show approval of generative-AI image or video outputs intended for consumers featuring the asserted works, and limited development/training production to that same consumer-facing scope. It otherwise denied the motion, including broader AI-strategy discovery and unused complaint-investigation prompts as work product.[^2] + + +[^1]: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT) — Complaint (June 11, 2025). Plaintiff allegations and original parties. + +[^2]: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026) — Order (June 15, 2026). Primary for consolidation, Warner Bros. Discovery parties, and discovery holdings. + +## Historical Context + +Disney is the leading Hollywood character-output case. It is adjacent to [Andersen v. Stability AI](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md), which is an artist class action about training copies and style, but this docket is about recognizable studio characters as outputs of a commercial generator.[^1][^2] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Central District of California. Authority level: complaint plus a magistrate discovery order. No source cited here decides [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) or substantial similarity on the merits.[^1][^2] + +The studios’ theory combines training-copy allegations with output substitution: the product is alleged to function as a “vending machine” for unauthorized character images.[^1] The discovery order treats the studios’ own consumer-facing AI use as potentially relevant while refusing a wide inquiry into internal AI development and unused lawyer-generated prompts.[^2] That is case-management, not a holding that studio AI use defeats infringement. + +This page does not treat complaint exhibits of generated character images as proven copying. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` cites [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT). +- `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. +- `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. + +## Sources + +1. [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT): Disney/Universal complaint (June 11, 2025). +2. [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026): Order on motion to compel (June 15, 2026). + +## Research Debt + +- Add the Warner Bros. original complaint and the November 2025 consolidation order as dedicated sources. +- Add any district-judge review of the June 15, 2026 discovery order from that motion and ruling. +- Add any later fair-use, substantial-similarity, or summary-judgment order. + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7bc050d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +--- +id: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB +title: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc. +type: case +status: draft +summary: Open-source developers’ action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights + - open-source-software +sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET +relationships: + - subject: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + predicate: cites + object: SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - subject: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2024-06-24" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md` +- Source ID: `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB) + +!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 2 + - **Relationships**: 4 + - **Research debt items**: 4 + +--- + +# Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc. + +## Summary + +Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-06823 (N.D. Cal.), is a class action by anonymous open-source developers against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI entities over GitHub Copilot. On June 24, 2024, Judge Jon S. Tigar dismissed the developers’ DMCA § 1202(b) copyright-management-information claims with prejudice, declined to dismiss breach-of-open-source-license claims, and dismissed unjust-enrichment and punitive-damages requests. Plaintiffs took an interlocutory appeal, Ninth Circuit No. 24-7700, which was argued February 11, 2026. No appellate opinion is recorded in the sources reviewed here. + +## Verified Facts + +- Defendants addressed in the June 24, 2024 order include GitHub, Inc., Microsoft, and OpenAI entities, including OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P. and OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC.[^1] +- The court dismissed plaintiffs’ § 1202(b) claim with prejudice. It declined to dismiss the claim for breach of contract based on alleged open-source license violations against all defendants. It dismissed requests for monetary relief in the form of unjust enrichment and for punitive damages.[^1] +- Plaintiffs opened a Ninth Circuit appeal, No. 24-7700, from the Northern District of California case No. 4:22-cv-06823-JST. The appellate docket records case opening on December 23, 2024, and oral argument on February 11, 2026, in San Francisco.[^2] + + +[^1]: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024) — Order (June 24, 2024). Primary for surviving and dismissed claims. + +[^2]: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET) — Ninth Circuit docket No. 24-7700. Primary for appeal number, opening date, and argument date. + +## Historical Context + +Doe is the leading U.S. case about generative coding tools trained on public repositories. It is not a conventional training-is-fair-use book or news case. The live district-court theory after the 2024 order is contract: whether Copilot’s use of licensed code breached the terms under which the code was published. The dismissed DMCA theory is about stripped attribution and license headers, a CMI issue that also appears in image and lyric cases such as [Andersen](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) and [Concord](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md).[^1] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California, with an interlocutory appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Authority level: district-court pleading order plus an appellate docket showing argument but not a decision.[^1][^2] + +The software-freedom stakes are the license-compliance claim and the CMI identicality question on appeal. A ruling that § 1202(b) requires an identical copy would limit DMCA metadata claims against generative outputs that are similar rather than verbatim. The surviving contract claim, if later tried, would test whether public open-source licenses can constrain model training and output independently of copyright fair use. This page does not treat either theory as resolved. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` cites [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024). +- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. +- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. +- `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`. + +## Sources + +1. [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024): Order on motions to dismiss (June 24, 2024). +2. [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET): Ninth Circuit docket No. 24-7700. + +## Research Debt + +- Add the original and operative complaints and the January 3, 2024 MTD order as pleading sources. +- Add the September 27, 2024 order certifying interlocutory appeal and staying the district case from that PDF. +- Add any Ninth Circuit opinion in No. 24-7700 when it issues. +- Add Authors Alliance / Samuelson Clinic amicus briefs only if OIR needs the appellate-advocacy record. + +## Document metadata + +- Decision date: `2024-06-24` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..25d2e415 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +--- +id: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY +title: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity’s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET + - SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET +relationships: + - subject: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + predicate: cites + object: SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2025-08-21" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md` +- Source ID: `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY) + +!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 3 + - **Relationships**: 3 + - **Research debt items**: 4 + +--- + +# Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. + +## Summary + +Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-07984 (S.D.N.Y.), is news-publisher copyright and trademark litigation over Perplexity’s generative “answer engine.” Dow Jones and NYP Holdings filed on October 21, 2024. On August 21, 2025, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, denied transfer to the Northern District of California, and allowed claims on ten works registered after the original complaint. The order is not a fair-use holding. A later Times action against Perplexity is pending in the same district. + +## Verified Facts + +- Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and NYP Holdings, Inc. filed a copyright complaint against Perplexity AI, Inc. on October 21, 2024, in the Southern District of New York, No. 1:24-cv-07984.[^2] +- The operative second amended complaint, as described in the court’s August 21, 2025 opinion, alleges copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106 and false designation of origin and trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Perplexity is described as a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco that developed an “answer engine.”[^1] +- On August 21, 2025, the court denied in full Perplexity’s motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3), its alternative motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and its Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to ten additional works registered after the original complaint but before an amended complaint.[^1] +- The court held that plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute, including alleged New York office, employees, registration to do business, and marketing contacts, and that venue was therefore proper. It declined to transfer the case.[^1] +- The New York Times Company filed a separate copyright complaint against Perplexity AI, Inc. on December 5, 2025, No. 1:25-cv-10106 (S.D.N.Y.).[^3] + + +[^1]: [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025) — Opinion & Order (Aug. 21, 2025). Primary for claims, jurisdiction, venue, and the ten-works ruling. + +[^2]: [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET) — CourtListener docket. Primary for original filing date. + +[^3]: [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET) — CourtListener docket for No. 1:25-cv-10106. Primary for Times filing date. + +## Historical Context + +This docket is the leading news-publisher case against a retrieval-augmented answer engine rather than a closed chatbot trained only on a static corpus. It is adjacent to [Times v. OpenAI](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) but names a different defendant and emphasizes real-time crawling plus generated answers.[^1] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York. Authority level: personal-jurisdiction, venue, and § 411(a) pleading order. The court did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) or substantial similarity on the merits.[^1] + +The practical result is that a California-headquartered AI company can be sued in New York on these allegations without a transfer. Output-substitution and RAG-copying theories remain for later stages. The Times Perplexity action is a separate case; this page records its filing, not its merits. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` cites [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025). +- `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` related_to `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`. +- `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. + +## Sources + +1. [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025): Opinion denying motion to dismiss (Aug. 21, 2025). +2. [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET): CourtListener docket for No. 1:24-cv-07984. +3. [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET): CourtListener docket for No. 1:25-cv-10106. + +## Research Debt + +- Add the second amended Dow Jones complaint as the operative pleading source. +- Add the Times Perplexity complaint and any later MTD order from those PDFs. +- Add Chicago Tribune Co. v. Perplexity, No. 1:25-cv-10094, from that complaint, not secondary summaries. +- Do not treat RAG architecture descriptions in the opinion as proven copying. + +## Document metadata + +- Decision date: `2025-08-21` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md index e17627f0..75fbdd00 100644 --- a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ tags: sources: - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 relationships: - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI predicate: cites @@ -33,7 +34,12 @@ relationships: object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC sources: - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" decision_date: "2025-11-11" --- @@ -48,8 +54,8 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside !!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" - **Status**: `draft` - - **Sources**: 2 - - **Relationships**: 4 + - **Sources**: 3 + - **Relationships**: 5 - **Research debt items**: 3 --- @@ -76,9 +82,11 @@ GEMA v. OpenAI, Az. 42 O 14139/24 (LG München I, Nov. 11, 2025), is a German fi [^2]: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025) — Official court press release (Nov. 11, 2025). Primary for summary holdings, dismissed personality-rights claim, and non-final status. +[^3]: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025) — OLG Hamburg, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025). Primary for the distinct dataset-TDM appellate report. + ## Historical Context -GEMA is a collecting society asserting lyrics, not record-label master rights. The theory—that a model that can emit lyrics on a simple prompt has reproduced those lyrics in its parameters—parallels the U.S. publisher allegations in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), but this is a first-instance merits judgment under the German Copyright Act and the InfoSoc and DSM Directives, not a U.S. fair-use case. +GEMA is a collecting society asserting lyrics, not record-label master rights. The theory—that a model that can emit lyrics on a simple prompt has reproduced those lyrics in its parameters—parallels the U.S. publisher allegations in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), but this is a first-instance merits judgment under the German Copyright Act and the InfoSoc and DSM Directives, not a U.S. fair-use case. [Kneschke v. LAION](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) is a different German TDM case about compiling an open image-text dataset, not memorized commercial-model outputs.[^3] ## Legal Analysis @@ -94,11 +102,13 @@ Comparative use: this is evidence of one EU member-state first-instance approach - `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`. - `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. - `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`. ## Sources 1. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025): LG München I Endurteil, 42 O 14139/24 (Nov. 11, 2025). 2. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025): LG München I Pressemitteilung 11/2025. +3. [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025): Kneschke OLG Hamburg (Dec. 10, 2025). ## Research Debt @@ -109,4 +119,4 @@ Comparative use: this is evidence of one EU member-state first-instance approach ## Document metadata - Decision date: `2025-11-11` -- Last verified: `2026-08-22` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9abd2801 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +--- +id: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY +title: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. +type: case +status: draft +summary: English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + predicate: cites + object: SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - subject: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + predicate: cites + object: SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 + - subject: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - subject: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - subject: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2025-11-04" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md` +- Source ID: `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY) + +!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 3 + - **Relationships**: 5 + - **Research debt items**: 3 + +--- + +# Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. + +## Summary + +Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd., [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (4 Nov. 2025), is a first-instance English trial judgment about Stability AI Limited’s Stable Diffusion image-generation models. Getty abandoned its primary UK training, output, and database-right copyright claims before closing. The remaining copyright theory—that the model weights were an “infringing copy” imported or dealt in under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988—failed. Limited historic trade-mark infringement was found from some generated watermarks. The judgment is English law and is not a U.S. fair-use holding. + +A separate U.S. action, Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., No. 25-cv-06891 (N.D. Cal.), was filed August 14, 2025, after Getty dismissed a Delaware predecessor without prejudice. On April 23, 2026, the Northern District of California dismissed Getty’s DMCA false-CMI claim without prejudice and allowed trademark, federal unfair-competition, dilution, and California UCL claims to proceed. Copyright infringement was not before the court on that motion. + +## Verified Facts + +- The English claim, No. IL-2023-000007 in the Intellectual Property List (Chancery Division), was tried before Mrs Justice Joanna Smith in June 2025 and decided on 4 November 2025.[^1] +- Getty alleged primary and secondary copyright infringement, database-right infringement, trade-mark infringement, and passing off against Stability AI Limited concerning Stable Diffusion.[^1] +- Shortly before closing submissions, Getty abandoned its training-and-development copyright claim, substantially abandoned its output copyright claim, and could no longer advance the database-right claim. The court recorded that Getty acknowledged there was no evidence the training had occurred in the United Kingdom.[^1] +- Getty continued a secondary-copyright theory under CDPA sections 22 and 23: that Stability imported, possessed, sold, or distributed an “article,” namely Stable Diffusion, which was an infringing copy because making the model weights in the UK would have infringed. Getty did not allege that the model itself stored copies of the copyright works.[^1] +- The court dismissed the secondary-copyright claim. It held that an “article” may be intangible, but an AI model such as Stable Diffusion that does not store or reproduce any copyright works, and has never done so, is not an “infringing copy,” so there is no infringement under sections 22 and 23.[^1] +- The court found Stability not directly liable for tortious acts arising from release of Stable Diffusion v1.x via CompVis GitHub and Hugging Face pages.[^1] +- Getty succeeded in part on trade-mark claims: limited historic infringement of iStock marks under Trade Marks Act 1994 sections 10(1) and 10(2) for some v1.x watermarks accessed via DreamStudio or the developer platform, and of Getty Images marks under section 10(2) for a v2.x example. Claims as to later models (SD XL and v1.6), section 10(3), and additional copyright damages were dismissed. The court declined to decide passing off.[^1] +- Getty first sued Stability AI in the District of Delaware, No. 23-cv-135-JLH. On August 14, 2025, Getty dismissed that action without prejudice and filed a complaint in the Northern District of California, No. 25-cv-06891, against Stability AI Ltd., Stability AI, Inc., and Stability AI US Services Corporation.[^2][^3] +- The U.S. complaint alleges seven counts: (I) copyright infringement; (II) false copyright management information under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a); (III) trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); (IV) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (V) trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (VI) California unfair competition; and (VII) California trademark dilution.[^3] +- Getty alleges that it has identified over 12 million links to images and associated text from Getty websites in a LAION dataset used to train Stable Diffusion, and that it selected 25,647 registered examples for the copyright claims in that complaint.[^2] +- On April 23, 2026, Judge Trina L. Thompson granted in part and denied in part Stability’s motion to dismiss Counts II through VII. Count II (§ 1202(a)) was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend by May 7, 2026. The court held that Getty had not pleaded the specific intent required by § 1202(a) to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement through false CMI, treating generated watermarks as alleged incidental byproducts of training. Trademark, federal unfair-competition, dilution, and California UCL claims survived.[^3] + + +[^1]: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025) — [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (4 Nov. 2025). Primary for parties, abandoned claims, and English holdings. + +[^2]: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT) — U.S. complaint (Aug. 14, 2025). Primary for N.D. Cal. filing, defendants, alleged dataset copying, and the 25,647 registered examples. + +[^3]: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026) — Order (Apr. 23, 2026). Primary for Delaware dismissal history, the seven counts, and the § 1202(a) / trademark / UCL rulings. + +## Historical Context + +Getty is the leading comparative image-training dispute with both a completed English trial and a live U.S. pleading-stage action. Unlike [Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md), which remains a U.S. artists’ class action about training copies, the English trial never reached a merits holding that training Stable Diffusion on Getty photographs in the UK was copyright infringement, because that claim was abandoned for lack of UK training evidence.[^1] The U.S. complaint’s training theory is still pending; the April 2026 order did not decide it.[^3] + +LAION datasets also appear in [Kneschke v. LAION](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) (German TDM exceptions for dataset compilation) and [In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md). Those cases have different defendants and different legal systems.[^3] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: High Court of England and Wales, plus a pending Northern District of California action. Authority level: English first-instance copyright and trade-mark judgment; U.S. Rule 12(b)(6) order on non-copyright counts. Neither source binds the other forum. The English judgment is not a Court of Justice of the European Union ruling, and the U.S. order is not a [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md) holding.[^1][^3] + +The English copyright holding is narrow. The court did not decide that training on copyrighted photographs is lawful. It decided that, on Getty’s remaining theory, model weights that do not store or reproduce the works are not infringing copies for secondary-infringement purposes under the CDPA.[^1] The English trade-mark findings concern generated Getty/iStock watermarks as signs, a different legal interest from copyright in the underlying photographs.[^1] + +The U.S. false-CMI dismissal is also narrow. Stability moved only on Counts II through VII; Count I (copyright infringement) was not dismissed. The court required double scienter under § 1202(a) and treated incidental watermark generation as insufficient intent at that pleading.[^3] Trademark and UCL survival is a likelihood-of-confusion and borrowing-statute pleading result, not a finding that outputs infringe. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` cites [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025). +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` cites [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026). +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. +- `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` related_to `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`. + +## Sources + +1. [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025): Getty Images v. Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch). +2. [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT): U.S. complaint (Aug. 14, 2025). +3. [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026): Order on motion to dismiss (Apr. 23, 2026). + +## Research Debt + +- Add [2025] EWHC 3343 (Ch) (permission to appeal) and any Court of Appeal decision from those PDFs. +- Add any first amended U.S. complaint after the May 7, 2026 deadline, and any later order on Count I. +- Do not treat abandoned UK training claims as a holding that training is lawful. + +## Document metadata + +- Decision date: `2025-11-04` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..08d4a120 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md @@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ +--- +id: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI +title: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + predicate: cites + object: SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2025-09-11" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md` +- Source ID: `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI) + +!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 1 + - **Relationships**: 4 + - **Research debt items**: 3 + +--- + +# In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation + +## Summary + +In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Master File No. 5:23-cv-03440 (N.D. Cal.), consolidates putative class actions by authors and visual artists alleging that Google LLC trained generative models on copyrighted works. On September 11, 2025, Judge Eumi K. Lee dismissed with prejudice direct-infringement claims as to specified models that the complaint did not factually connect to the training datasets, and dismissed vicarious claims against Alphabet Inc. Claims concerning Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related large-language and Imagen models were not dismissed on that ground. The order is not a fair-use holding. + +## Verified Facts + +- The consolidated action originated as Leovy v. Google LLC, No. 23-cv-03440, filed July 11, 2023, and Zhang v. Google LLC, No. 24-cv-02531, filed April 26, 2024, on behalf of visual artists including photographers, cartoonists, and illustrators. After reassignment, the court consolidated the cases for all trial and pretrial proceedings under Master File No. 23-cv-03440-EKL, captioned In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation.[^1] +- The consolidated amended complaint alleged that Google and Alphabet “infringed millions of registered copyrighted works” to build and train Google’s generative AI models. Plaintiffs alleged training of large language models including PaLM, GLaM, LaMDA, Bard, and Gemini on overlapping datasets including Infiniset/C4, and training of Imagen text-to-image models on LAION-400M and LAION-5B.[^1] +- On September 11, 2025, the court granted Google’s motion to dismiss in part, without leave to amend as to the dismissed claims. Direct-infringement claims relating to Codey, Chirp, Veo, MedLM, LearnLM, SecLM, Gemma, CodeGemma, RecurrentGemma, and PaliGemma were dismissed with prejudice. Vicarious copyright-infringement claims against Alphabet were dismissed with prejudice.[^1] +- The court found that the complaint alleged training of PaLM, GLaM, LaMDA, Bard, Gemini, and Imagen on datasets said to include copyrighted works, and it rejected Google’s attempt to dismiss named plaintiff Sarah Andersen’s claims at the pleading stage on registration/publication grounds as too fact-bound.[^1] +- Plaintiffs were ordered to file a second amended consolidated complaint within 14 days limited to amending the class definition consistent with a prior order striking class allegations, without adding new claims, parties, or other allegations.[^1] + + +[^1]: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025) — Order (Sept. 11, 2025). Primary for history, alleged theories, and holdings. + +## Historical Context + +This is the leading U.S. class action against Google’s generative products. Image-training allegations overlap the LAION datasets also at issue in [Andersen v. Stability AI](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) and [Kneschke v. LAION](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md), but those cases have different defendants and different legal systems.[^1] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: Rule 12(b)(6) order. The court did not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md). It required model-by-model factual allegations connecting training datasets to copyrighted works, and it refused to treat ordinary parent-subsidiary control as vicarious copyright liability.[^1] + +This page does not treat later class-certification or discovery orders as merits holdings. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` cites [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025). +- `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. +- `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` related_to `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`. +- `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. + +## Sources + +1. [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025): Order granting motion to dismiss in part (Sept. 11, 2025). + +## Research Debt + +- Add the second amended consolidated complaint and any class-certification order from those filings. +- Add later discovery orders only for scheduling facts that OIR needs. +- Named plaintiff overlap with Andersen is noted in the 2025 order; do not merge the dockets. + +## Document metadata + +- Decision date: `2025-09-11` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1f11db81 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ +--- +id: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI +title: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation +type: case +status: draft +summary: Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + predicate: cites + object: SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + sources: + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + predicate: cites + object: SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + sources: + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - subject: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2025-10-27" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md` +- Source ID: `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI) + +!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 2 + - **Relationships**: 4 + - **Research debt items**: 4 + +--- + +# In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation + +## Summary + +In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, MDL No. 3143 (S.D.N.Y.), is the centralized pretrial docket for copyright actions alleging that OpenAI and Microsoft used copyrighted works to train large language models. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred out-of-district cases to Judge Sidney H. Stein. On October 27, 2025, the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class plaintiffs’ direct-infringement claim based on ChatGPT outputs. The news-publisher track remains documented on [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp.](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md). + +## Verified Facts + +- In MDL No. 3143, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found that twelve actions in the Northern District of California and the Southern District of New York shared factual questions about OpenAI and Microsoft training large language models such as GPT-4 and generating outputs through products including ChatGPT and Bing Chat/Copilot, and it transferred the out-of-district actions to the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Sidney H. Stein.[^1] +- Schedule A to the transfer order listed, among others, Tremblay, Silverman, Chabon, and Millette (N.D. Cal.); Authors Guild, Alter, Basbanes, Raw Story, The Intercept, Daily News, and Center for Investigative Reporting (S.D.N.Y.); and The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 1:23-cv-11195.[^1] +- The Panel described differences among author class claims (books used as training input), news claims (training plus alleged verbatim or detailed output summaries), DMCA copyright-management-information claims that do not allege copyright infringement, and a YouTube-transcript class (Millette), but held those differences did not prevent centralization.[^1] +- On October 27, 2025, in 25-md-3143, Judge Stein denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint’s output-based direct-infringement claim in putative class actions including Authors Guild, No. 23-cv-8292. The court held that the complaint adequately stated a prima facie claim because some alleged ChatGPT outputs, including a detailed summary of George R.R. Martin’s *A Game of Thrones* and an alternate-sequel outline using protected setting, plot, and characters, could be found substantially similar by a reasonable jury applying the more discerning observer test.[^2] +- The October 27, 2025 opinion states that it makes no conclusions regarding fair use.[^2] + + +[^1]: [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143) — JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143). Primary for centralization and Schedule A. + +[^2]: [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025) — Opinion & Order (Oct. 27, 2025). Primary for output-claim pleading holding. + +## Historical Context + +The MDL gathers the book-author class actions that began as Authors Guild, Tremblay, Silverman, and related suits, together with news and DMCA cases already before Judge Stein. It is a pretrial coordination device, not a single merits judgment that training is or is not fair use.[^1][^2] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: JPML centralization into the Southern District of New York. Authority level: transfer order plus a Rule 12(b)(6) opinion on output similarity. The October 2025 order is important for what it did not do: it refused to end output claims as a matter of law at the pleading stage, while expressly reserving [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md).[^2] Training-input claims were not the subject of that motion. + +News-publisher pleading orders remain on the Times page. This page does not treat alleged ChatGPT summaries as proven copying. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` cites [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143). +- `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` cites [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025). +- `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI`. +- `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. + +## Sources + +1. [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143): JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. +2. [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025): Opinion denying motion to dismiss output claims (Oct. 27, 2025). + +## Research Debt + +- Replace the law-firm hosted October 27, 2025 opinion with a RECAP/PACER original when available. +- Add the consolidated class action complaint (Baldacci et al.) as the operative author pleading. +- Add later summary-judgment or discovery orders on output logs from those PDFs. +- Document tag-along actions filed after Schedule A only from later JPML or docket entries. + +## Document metadata + +- Decision date: `2025-10-27` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4e18d2d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +--- +id: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION +title: Kneschke v. LAION e.V. +type: case +status: draft +summary: German photographer’s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + predicate: cites + object: SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - subject: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - subject: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 + - subject: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +decision_date: "2024-09-27" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md` +- Source ID: `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION) + +!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 2 + - **Relationships**: 4 + - **Research debt items**: 3 + +--- + +# Kneschke v. LAION e.V. + +## Summary + +Kneschke v. LAION e.V., Az. 310 O 227/23 (LG Hamburg, Sept. 27, 2024), aff’d 5 U 104/24 (OLG Hamburg, Dec. 10, 2025), is a German copyright action by photographer Robert Kneschke against the nonprofit LAION over downloading his photograph from a stock-photo site to compile an image-text dataset used for AI training. The Regional Court dismissed the claim, holding the reproduction was covered by the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception. The Higher Regional Court dismissed the appeal and, as reported, also applied the general TDM exception. The decisions are German law implementing the DSM Directive’s TDM exceptions; they are not U.S. fair-use holdings and do not decide commercial model training by for-profit labs. + +## Verified Facts + +- On September 27, 2024, Landgericht Hamburg, 10. Zivilkammer, entered judgment in 310 O 227/23 dismissing the photographer’s complaint (Tenor: “Die Klage wird abgewiesen.”).[^1] +- The court found that LAION reproduced the photograph by downloading it, thereby interfering with the photographer’s exploitation rights, but that the reproduction was covered by the statutory TDM exception for scientific research. It treated the general commercial TDM exception as doubtful on the facts and unnecessary to decide because the research exception applied.[^1] +- LAION’s dataset is described as a publicly available table of hyperlinks to images plus text descriptions (image-text pairs) that can be used to train generative models; the disputed act was a download to compare image content with an existing description.[^1] +- On December 10, 2025, the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court, 5 U 104/24, dismissed the photographer’s appeal from the September 27, 2024 judgment. The court’s reported holding is that LAION’s use was covered by both § 44b UrhG (general TDM) and § 60d UrhG (research TDM), including that the stock-site reservation of use did not meet the machine-readability requirement for an effective opt-out under § 44b(3).[^2] + + +[^1]: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024) — LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024). Primary for tenor and first-instance holdings. + +[^2]: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025) — OLG Hamburg decision report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025). Primary for appellate caption and reported holdings. + +## Historical Context + +Kneschke is the leading German dataset-compilation case. It is distinct from [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md), which treated memorized lyrics in a commercial LLM as reproductions outside TDM, and from [Getty Images v. Stability AI](CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md), an English trial about model weights as infringing copies. LAION is a nonprofit dataset publisher, not a commercial image-generator operator. + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Landgericht Hamburg, affirmed by OLG Hamburg. Authority level: German first- and second-instance copyright judgments applying §§ 44b and 60d UrhG / Arts. 3–4 of the DSM Directive. They do not bind U.S. courts and are not Court of Justice of the European Union rulings.[^1][^2] + +The first-instance court decided only the download used to build the dataset, not whether later commercial training of a generative model is TDM.[^1] The appellate report adds that both TDM exceptions applied and that a natural-language website reservation was not an effective machine-readable opt-out on those facts.[^2] BGH review, if sought, is outside the sources cited here. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` cites [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024). +- `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` related_to `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`. +- `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`. +- `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. + +## Sources + +1. [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024): LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024). +2. [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025): OLG Hamburg, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025). + +## Research Debt + +- Replace the rewis reprint with an official LG PDF or openJur citation when available. +- Add the official OLG Hamburg judgment PDF and any BGH caption (reported elsewhere as I ZR 281/25) from those texts. +- Do not treat this as a holding that commercial generative-model training is lawful TDM. + +## Document metadata + +- Decision date: `2024-09-27` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md index d0cde974..35f17572 100644 --- a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ sources: - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025 - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026 + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET relationships: - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI predicate: cites @@ -29,7 +31,17 @@ relationships: object: STAT-USC-107 sources: - SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025 -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - subject: CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + sources: + - SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET +last_verified: "2026-09-02" decision_date: "2025-04-04" --- @@ -44,8 +56,8 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside !!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" - **Status**: `draft` - - **Sources**: 3 - - **Relationships**: 3 + - **Sources**: 5 + - **Relationships**: 5 - **Research debt items**: 5 --- @@ -76,9 +88,13 @@ The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y.), [^3]: [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026) — Order (Aug. 6, 2026). Primary district-court authority on later contributory-claim dismissal. +[^4]: [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143) — JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. Primary for centralization of the Times action. + +[^5]: [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET) — CourtListener docket for No. 1:25-cv-10106. Primary for the later Times filing against Perplexity. + ## Historical Context -The Times action is the highest-profile news-publisher suit in the generative-AI copyright wave. Unlike [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), which reached summary judgment on book-training fair use, this docket remained at pleadings and discovery as of the August 2026 order, with output substitution and training still live issues for remaining claims.[^2][^3] +The Times action is the highest-profile news-publisher suit in the generative-AI copyright wave. Unlike [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), which reached summary judgment on book-training fair use, this docket remained at pleadings and discovery as of the August 2026 order, with output substitution and training still live issues for remaining claims.[^2][^3] The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action, among others, into [In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md).[^4] A later Times complaint against Perplexity AI is recorded on [Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.](CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md).[^5] ## Legal Analysis @@ -93,22 +109,26 @@ This page does not treat the complaint’s exhibits of allegedly memorized artic - `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` cites [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025). - `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. - `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `STAT-USC-107`. +- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`. +- `CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI` related_to `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`. ## Sources 1. [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT): Times complaint (Dec. 27, 2023). 2. [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025): Opinion on motions to dismiss (Apr. 4, 2025). 3. [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026): Order on Rule 12(c) contributory claims (Aug. 6, 2026). +4. [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143): JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. +5. [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET): CourtListener docket for Times v. Perplexity, No. 1:25-cv-10106. ## Research Debt - Add the first amended Times complaint (ECF 170) as the operative pleading source. -- Document consolidation/MDL captioning (RECAP numbers differ across related dockets). +- Document consolidation/MDL captioning (RECAP numbers differ across related dockets). The MDL transfer and author-class output claims are now [CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI](CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md). - Add any summary-judgment or discovery orders on output logs after August 2026. - Create a dedicated CASE page for Cox v. Sony (146 S. Ct. 959 (2026)) if OIR takes on secondary copyright liability more broadly. -- Getty Images v. Stability AI, Authors Guild/OpenAI book cases, and Disney/Midjourney remain separate research-debt case pages. +- The Times action against Perplexity is recorded on [CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY](CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md); add that complaint and any later order from those PDFs. ## Document metadata - Decision date: `2025-04-04` -- Last verified: `2026-08-22` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..86b7366d --- /dev/null +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ +--- +id: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC +title: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC +type: case +status: draft +summary: Pending Northern District of California publisher action filed August 28, 2026, alleging that Anthropic and two founders torrented, scraped, and used copyrighted lyrics and sheet music to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those compositions. +tags: + - case + - copyright + - artificial-intelligence + - digital-rights +sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 +relationships: + - subject: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: cites + object: SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 +last_verified: "2026-09-02" +--- + +# Generated Source Mirror + +This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside the MkDocs site. + +- Source path: `knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md` +- Source ID: `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` +- [**Edit this page**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/edit/main/knowledge/legal/CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | [**Suggest a change**](https://github.com/itsmeront/open-internet-reference/issues/new?template=suggest-edit.yml&title=Edit+suggestion:+CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC) + +!!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" + + - **Status**: `draft` + - **Sources**: 1 + - **Relationships**: 4 + - **Research debt items**: 3 + +--- + +# Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC + +## Summary + +Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:26-cv-09217 (N.D. Cal.), is a music-publisher copyright action filed August 28, 2026, against Anthropic PBC, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann. Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell affiliates allege torrenting of books containing lyrics and sheet music, scraping and other copying of compositions to train Claude, output reproduction, and DMCA copyright-management-information removal. The complaint is allegations only; no merits ruling is recorded in the source reviewed here. + +## Verified Facts + +- On August 28, 2026, Sony Music Publishing affiliates and Warner Chappell Music affiliates filed a complaint in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, No. 5:26-cv-09217, against Anthropic PBC, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann.[^1] +- Plaintiffs allege they own or control musical compositions including lyrics and sheet music, and that defendants torrented, scraped, and downloaded those works to develop Claude, including by torrenting books from Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror that contained lyrics and sheet music.[^1] +- The complaint pleads four counts: (I) direct copyright infringement by torrenting against all defendants; (II) contributory infringement by torrenting against Amodei and Mann; (III) direct copyright infringement against Anthropic, including scraping, downloading third-party datasets, destructive scanning, training, and generating verbatim or derivative lyric outputs; and (IV) removal or alteration of copyright management information against Anthropic under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b).[^1] +- Plaintiffs demand a jury trial and seek, among other relief, statutory damages up to $150,000 per work under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), statutory damages up to $25,000 per CMI violation under § 1203(c)(3)(B), injunctive relief, destruction of infringing copies, and an accounting of training data.[^1] +- The complaint cites [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) for the description of Anthropic’s alleged torrenting as piracy at scale, and it refers to the earlier publisher action [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) and a later Concord docket, No. 5:26-cv-00880.[^1] + + +[^1]: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026) — Complaint (Aug. 28, 2026). Primary for parties, docket number, counts, and alleged facts. + +## Historical Context + +This filing brings Sony and Warner publishing catalogs into the same Northern District of California lyric-and-piracy cluster already occupied by Concord/UMG publishers and by Bartz’s book-piracy settlement. It is a composition (lyrics/sheet music) case, not a sound-recording case against a music generator such as [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) or [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md).[^1] + +## Legal Analysis + +Jurisdiction: Northern District of California. Authority level: complaint only. The pleading does not decide [§ 107](STAT-USC-107.md). Plaintiffs frame the dispute around alleged pirated acquisition and regurgitation, the same distinction Bartz drew between training copies and a pirated library, but this court has not applied that distinction to these publishers’ works.[^1] + +Naming Amodei and Mann as individual torrenting defendants is a different party structure from Concord’s company-only caption in the sources on that page. Treat that as a pleading choice, not a finding of personal liability. + +## Relationships + +- `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` cites [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026). +- `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT`. +- `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` related_to `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC`. + +## Sources + +1. [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026): Sony/Warner publisher complaint (Aug. 28, 2026). + +## Research Debt + +- Replace the journalist-hosted PDF with a RECAP/PACER original when available. +- Add Anthropic’s response, any related-case order, and any motion to dismiss. +- Concord II is now on [CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md); BMG is [CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md). + +## Document metadata + +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md index adebaf16..462f7852 100644 --- a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ id: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT title: Copyright and Generative AI type: topic status: draft -summary: U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, pending publisher and music suits, and character-ownership claims. +summary: U.S. and comparative copyright issues raised by generative AI, including human authorship of outputs, fair use of training corpora, publisher and music suits, image-generator and studio character cases, German TDM dataset litigation, Google generative-model class claims, and open-source Copilot litigation. tags: - copyright - artificial-intelligence @@ -23,6 +23,23 @@ sources: - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026 + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT - SRC-USC-17-107-LII - SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO relationships: @@ -111,7 +128,57 @@ relationships: object: PERSON-KIT-WALSH sources: - SRC-WALSH-EFF-BIO -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" --- # Generated Source Mirror @@ -125,8 +192,8 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside !!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" - **Status**: `draft` - - **Sources**: 15 - - **Relationships**: 17 + - **Sources**: 32 + - **Relationships**: 27 - **Research debt items**: 5 --- @@ -148,8 +215,14 @@ U.S. copyright law is being applied to generative AI along two tracks. Outputs: - In [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md), the Northern District of California held that training Claude on books was transformative fair use but that a permanent library of pirated copies was not excused as fair use; a $1.5 billion class settlement of the piracy claims received final approval on July 20, 2026.[^6][^7] - In [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md), the Northern District of California granted Meta summary judgment on fair use for training Llama on thirteen authors’ books on that record, while warning that market-dilution evidence could change the result in other cases and leaving torrenting-distribution claims open.[^8] - In [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp.](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md), the Southern District of New York in April 2025 largely denied motions to dismiss publisher copyright claims against OpenAI and Microsoft; an August 2026 order later dismissed material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement.[^9] +- [In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) centralized author and publisher actions in MDL No. 3143. On October 27, 2025, the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs, holding some alleged summaries and sequel outlines could be substantially similar, without deciding fair use.[^22][^23] +- In [Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.](CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md), the Southern District of New York on August 21, 2025 denied Perplexity’s motion to dismiss a news-publisher copyright and trademark action over its answer engine for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; a later Times action against Perplexity was filed in the same district.[^24] - In [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md), game studios seek a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” meme characters are not copyrightable. See [Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters](TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md).[^10] -- Music-industry suits are collected in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): labels allege unlicensed copying of sound recordings to train [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md); publishers allege lyric copying in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md); and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) is a non-final German first-instance judgment that memorized lyrics in models 4 and 4o were unauthorized reproductions.[^11][^12][^13][^14] +- Music-industry suits are collected in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): labels allege unlicensed copying of sound recordings to train [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md); publishers allege lyric copying in [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (including a later torrenting complaint, Concord II), [BMG v. Anthropic](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md), and the later [Sony/Warner publisher action against Anthropic](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md); and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) is a non-final German first-instance judgment that memorized lyrics in models 4 and 4o were unauthorized reproductions.[^11][^12][^13][^14][^15][^25][^26] +- Image-generator suits now have dedicated pages. [Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) is a pending U.S. artists’ class action in which Copyright Act claims survived dismissal and DMCA claims did not.[^16] [Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc.](CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) is pending studio litigation over alleged character outputs, later consolidated with a Warner Bros. Discovery action.[^17][^18] [Getty Images v. Stability AI](CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) is an English trial judgment that dismissed Getty’s remaining secondary-copyright theory after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims; a later Northern District of California action dismissed a false-CMI claim without prejudice while trademark and UCL claims survived.[^19][^27][^28] +- [Kneschke v. LAION](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) is a German photographer’s claim against a nonprofit dataset publisher: Landgericht Hamburg dismissed the complaint, applying the scientific-research TDM exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception as reported.[^29][^30] +- [In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) is a Northern District of California putative class action; a September 11, 2025 order dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims.[^31] +- [Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc.](CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) is the leading open-source Copilot action: the district court dismissed DMCA § 1202(b) claims with prejudice and allowed open-source-license contract claims; a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued February 11, 2026.[^20][^21] [^1]: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII) — 17 U.S.C. § 107. Primary statutory authority. @@ -180,6 +253,40 @@ U.S. copyright law is being applied to generative AI along two tracks. Outputs: [^14]: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025) — LG München I Nov. 11, 2025. Non-final first-instance judgment. +[^15]: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026) — N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026. Pending; plaintiff allegations. + +[^16]: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024) — N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024. Pleading-stage order. + +[^17]: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT) — C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025. Pending; plaintiff allegations. + +[^18]: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026) — C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026. Discovery order; records consolidation. + +[^19]: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025) — [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) (4 Nov. 2025). English first-instance judgment. + +[^20]: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024) — N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024. Pleading-stage order. + +[^21]: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET) — 9th Cir. No. 24-7700. Appellate docket; argued Feb. 11, 2026. + +[^22]: [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143) — JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. + +[^23]: [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025) — S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025. Pleading-stage authority on author-class outputs. + +[^24]: [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025) — S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025. Jurisdiction, venue, and later-registered works. + +[^25]: [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT) — N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026. Pending; plaintiff allegations. + +[^26]: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT) — N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026. Pending; plaintiff allegations. + +[^27]: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT) — N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025. Pending; plaintiff allegations. + +[^28]: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026) — N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026. Pleading-stage order on CMI, trademark, and UCL. + +[^29]: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024) — LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024). + +[^30]: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025) — OLG Hamburg, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025). Appellate report. + +[^31]: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025) — N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025. Pleading-stage order. + ## Historical Context Software copyright already had a fair-use landmark in [Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.](CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE.md), which treated copying of Java API declaring code as transformative fair use. Generative-AI cases cite Google v. Oracle but present a different use: ingesting expressive works at scale to produce competing text, images, or music. No U.S. court of appeals had, as of the sources reviewed here, issued a merits holding that LLM training on copyrighted books is or is not fair use. @@ -190,7 +297,7 @@ Three questions should be kept separate. **Authorship of outputs.** Thaler and Copyright Office practice answer the easy case: a work with no human author cannot be registered or owned as copyrighted expression.[^2][^3][^4] Mixed works remain a case-by-case inquiry. Spyder tests whether viral meme characters created with image generators fall on the uncopyrightable side of that line.[^10] -**Copying for training (inputs).** Fair use under § 107 is fact-specific.[^1] Ross involved a substitute legal-research tool, not a generative writer.[^5] Bartz treated generative training as transformative but piracy-for-library as infringement.[^6] Kadrey treated generative training as fair use on a thin market-harm record while saying other records may come out the other way.[^8] Publisher cases such as the Times action add output-substitution and secondary-liability theories that book-training summary judgments did not decide.[^9] Music cases add a further split: sound-recording training claims against Suno and Udio remain without a U.S. fair-use holding, while GEMA is a non-final German holding that lyric memorization is reproduction outside the TDM exception.[^11][^12][^14] +**Copying for training (inputs).** Fair use under § 107 is fact-specific.[^1] Ross involved a substitute legal-research tool, not a generative writer.[^5] Bartz treated generative training as transformative but piracy-for-library as infringement.[^6] Kadrey treated generative training as fair use on a thin market-harm record while saying other records may come out the other way.[^8] Publisher cases such as the Times action add output-substitution and secondary-liability theories that book-training summary judgments did not decide.[^9] The OpenAI MDL’s October 2025 order adds that alleged ChatGPT summaries of books can survive a substantial-similarity challenge at the pleading stage, still without a fair-use holding.[^23] Perplexity is a retrieval-augmented answer-engine docket, not a closed-corpus training fair-use ruling.[^24] Image cases add a further split: Andersen’s training-copy claims are pending in the United States,[^16] Getty’s English trial never reached a UK-training holding because that claim was abandoned and the remaining model-as-infringing-copy theory failed,[^19] and Getty’s U.S. action remains at pleadings after a false-CMI dismissal.[^28] Kneschke is German TDM law about downloading an image to compile an open dataset, not a holding that commercial model training is always lawful.[^29][^30] Google’s generative-AI class action shows courts requiring model-by-model factual allegations connecting datasets to works.[^31] Music cases add another split: sound-recording training claims against Suno and Udio remain without a U.S. fair-use holding, while GEMA is a non-final German holding that lyric memorization is reproduction outside the TDM exception.[^11][^12][^14] Open-source code is on a different track in Doe: DMCA CMI claims were dismissed and license-contract claims remain, with the CMI identicality question in the Ninth Circuit.[^20][^21] **Remedies and settlements.** Bartz’s $1.5 billion settlement prices past pirated acquisition for a defined class; it does not freeze the fair-use doctrine or release output claims.[^7] @@ -215,6 +322,16 @@ Non-copyright AI suits (chatbot product liability, defamation, privacy) are coll - `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`. - `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE`. - `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `PERSON-KIT-WALSH`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`. +- `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`. ## Sources @@ -232,6 +349,23 @@ Non-copyright AI suits (chatbot product liability, defamation, privacy) are coll 12. [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT): UMG v. Udio complaint (2024). 13. [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025): Concord v. Anthropic MTD denial (2025). 14. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025): GEMA v. OpenAI, LG München I (2025). +15. [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026): Sony/Warner publisher complaint against Anthropic (2026). +16. [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024): Andersen MTD order (2024). +17. [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT): Disney/Universal complaint (2025). +18. [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026): Disney discovery order (2026). +19. [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025): Getty Images v. Stability AI [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch). +20. [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024): Doe v. GitHub MTD order (2024). +21. [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET): Doe v. GitHub Ninth Circuit docket (24-7700). +22. [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143): JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. +23. [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025): In re OpenAI output-claim MTD opinion (2025). +24. [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025): Dow Jones v. Perplexity MTD opinion (2025). +25. [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT): Concord II complaint (2026). +26. [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT): BMG v. Anthropic complaint (2026). +27. [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT): Getty U.S. complaint (2025). +28. [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026): Getty U.S. MTD order (2026). +29. [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024): Kneschke LG Hamburg (2024). +30. [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025): Kneschke OLG Hamburg (2025). +31. [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025): In re Google Generative AI MTD order (2025). Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes): @@ -239,12 +373,12 @@ Additional sources (not yet cited in footnotes): ## Research Debt -- Add Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK High Court 2025 and N.D. Cal. U.S. action) with primary judgments. -- Add Andersen v. Stability AI / artists’ class actions from complaints and orders. - Add Copyright Office Part 3 (training) when a final version is cited from copyright.gov rather than secondary summaries. - Document U.S. Copyright Office registration examples beyond Thaler (Zarya of the Dawn; later granted mixed-work registrations). - Music-generator and lyric cases now have dedicated pages; add later U.S. fair-use orders and any OLG München appeal in GEMA there. +- Add any Ninth Circuit opinion in Doe v. GitHub. +- Add any BGH judgment in Kneschke from that official text. ## Document metadata -- Last verified: `2026-08-22` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md index 3d3024b8..52e7cfba 100644 --- a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ id: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION title: AI Litigation Landscape type: topic status: draft -summary: Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. +summary: Inventory of major civil actions involving generative AI, spanning copyright of training data and outputs (including music, images, news, code, and datasets), chatbot product-liability claims, and adjacent First Amendment issues. tags: - artificial-intelligence - copyright @@ -26,6 +26,22 @@ sources: - SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026 + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET + - SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143 + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025 + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT relationships: - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION predicate: related_to @@ -108,7 +124,57 @@ relationships: sources: - SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025 notes: Adjacent inventory of proceedings against software authors; Garcia is civil product liability, not a criminal developer prosecution. -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY + sources: + - SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY + sources: + - SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB + sources: + - SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI + sources: + - SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY + sources: + - SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION + sources: + - SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI + sources: + - SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" --- # Generated Source Mirror @@ -122,9 +188,9 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside !!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" - **Status**: `draft` - - **Sources**: 14 - - **Relationships**: 16 - - **Research debt items**: 5 + - **Sources**: 30 + - **Relationships**: 26 + - **Research debt items**: 6 --- @@ -132,7 +198,7 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside ## Summary -Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented here fall into four clusters: (1) copyright in training data and model outputs, including news, books, and music, (2) copyright and trademark claims over AI-generated viral characters, (3) product-liability and speech defenses when chatbot products are alleged to have harmed users, and (4) one comparative German first-instance lyric judgment. This page is an inventory, not a prediction of outcomes. +Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented here fall into five clusters: (1) copyright in training data and model outputs, including news, books, music, images, datasets, and code, (2) copyright and trademark claims over AI-generated viral characters, (3) product-liability and speech defenses when chatbot products are alleged to have harmed users, (4) comparative German and English judgments, and (5) pending publisher and class actions that have not reached fair-use merits. This page is an inventory, not a prediction of outcomes. ## Verified Facts @@ -142,9 +208,14 @@ Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented - [Bartz v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) held that training Claude on books was transformative fair use but that a pirated permanent library was not; a $1.5 billion class settlement of piracy claims was finally approved July 20, 2026.[^4][^5] - [Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc.](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2025) granted Meta fair-use summary judgment on Llama training as to thirteen authors on that record, while leaving torrenting-distribution claims for later proceedings.[^6] - [The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp.](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) (S.D.N.Y.) survived most of an April 4, 2025 motion to dismiss; an August 6, 2026 order dismissed material-contribution contributory claims premised on alleged end-user infringement.[^7][^8] +- [In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) (MDL No. 3143, S.D.N.Y.) centralized author and publisher actions; on October 27, 2025, the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class output-infringement claims without deciding fair use.[^22][^23] +- [Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.](CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) (S.D.N.Y.) survived an August 21, 2025 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; a related Times action against Perplexity was later filed in the same district.[^24] - [Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 26, 2025) seeks a declaration that AI-generated “brainrot” characters used in Steal a Brainrot are not copyrightable. See [Brain Rot and AI-Generated Meme Characters](TOPIC-BRAIN-ROT.md).[^9] - [Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc.](CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025) allowed most wrongful-death and product-liability claims against a chatbot company and Google to proceed and declined, at the pleading stage, to treat LLM output as protected speech.[^10] -- Music copyright dockets are inventoried in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [UMG v. Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [UMG v. Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings; partial dismissals; no U.S. fair-use holding), [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (lyrics; secondary and DMCA claims survive dismissal), and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) (non-final German first-instance lyric judgment).[^11][^12][^13][^14] +- Music copyright dockets are inventoried in [Music Copyright and Generative AI](TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md): [UMG v. Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) and [UMG v. Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) (sound recordings; partial dismissals; no U.S. fair-use holding), [Concord v. Anthropic](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (lyrics; secondary and DMCA claims survive dismissal; Concord II alleges torrenting), [BMG v. Anthropic](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (later publisher complaint; allegations only), [Sony Music Publishing v. Anthropic](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) (later publisher complaint naming founders; allegations only), and [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) (non-final German first-instance lyric judgment).[^11][^12][^13][^14][^15][^25][^26] +- Image-generator dockets: [Andersen v. Stability AI](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) (artists’ class action; Copyright Act claims survive dismissal; DMCA dismissed), [Disney v. Midjourney](CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) (studio character outputs; consolidated with Warner Bros. Discovery; discovery ongoing), and [Getty Images v. Stability AI](CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) (English trial; secondary copyright dismissed after training claims were abandoned; U.S. action pending after a false-CMI dismissal).[^16][^17][^18][^19][^27] +- Dataset and Google models: [Kneschke v. LAION](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) (German TDM exceptions for compiling an open image-text dataset) and [In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation](CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) (some models dismissed with prejudice; Bard/Gemini/Imagen claims remain).[^28][^29][^30] +- Open-source code: [Doe 1 v. GitHub](CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) (Copilot; DMCA § 1202(b) dismissed with prejudice; license-contract claims survived; Ninth Circuit argument February 11, 2026).[^20][^21] [^1]: [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC) — 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025). @@ -175,6 +246,38 @@ Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented [^14]: [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025) — LG München I Nov. 11, 2025. Not final. +[^15]: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026) — N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026. Pending; allegations. + +[^16]: [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024) — N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024. + +[^17]: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT) — C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025. Pending. + +[^18]: [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026) — C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026. + +[^19]: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025) — [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch). + +[^20]: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024) — N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024. + +[^21]: [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET) — 9th Cir. No. 24-7700. + +[^22]: [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143) — JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. + +[^23]: [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025) — S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025. + +[^24]: [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025) — S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025. + +[^25]: [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT) — N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2026. Pending; allegations. + +[^26]: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT) — N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026. Pending; allegations. + +[^27]: [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026) — N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026. + +[^28]: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024) — LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024). + +[^29]: [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025) — OLG Hamburg, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025). + +[^30]: [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025) — N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025. + ## Case map | Cluster | Leading OIR page | What is actually decided (as of sources cited) | @@ -184,10 +287,20 @@ Generative AI is now a regular subject of civil litigation. The cases documented | Training market harm | [Kadrey](CASE-KADREY-V-META.md) | Fair use on this record; dilution theory undeveloped. | | Competing research AI | [Ross](CASE-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS.md) | Not fair use; tool was not generative. | | News outputs | [Times v. OpenAI](CASE-NYT-V-OPENAI.md) | Claims largely survive dismissal; some secondary theories dismissed. | +| Author-class outputs (MDL) | [In re OpenAI](CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) | Output claims survive 12(b)(6); no fair use. | +| Answer-engine news | [Dow Jones v. Perplexity](CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) | Jurisdiction/venue survive; no fair-use ruling. | | Meme-character ownership | [Spyder](CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM.md) | Pending declaration action. | | Music masters | [Suno](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md) / [Udio](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md) | Pending; partial dismissals; no U.S. fair-use holding. | -| Music lyrics (U.S.) | [Concord](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Secondary and CMI claims survive 12(b)(6). | +| Music lyrics (U.S.) | [Concord](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Secondary and CMI claims survive 12(b)(6); Concord II alleges torrenting. | +| Music lyrics (BMG) | [BMG v. Anthropic](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Complaint filed Mar. 17, 2026; no merits ruling. | | Music lyrics (DE) | [GEMA](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) | First-instance liability; not final. | +| Music lyrics (Sony/Warner) | [Sony v. Anthropic](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md) | Complaint filed Aug. 28, 2026; no merits ruling. | +| Visual-artist training | [Andersen](CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) | Copyright claims survive 12(b)(6); DMCA out. | +| Studio character outputs | [Disney v. Midjourney](CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY.md) | Pending; consolidated; discovery order 2026. | +| Image model (UK / U.S.) | [Getty](CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) | UK: secondary copyright fails; limited TM; training claims abandoned. U.S.: false CMI out w/o prejudice; TM/UCL survive. | +| Dataset TDM (DE) | [Kneschke](CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) | Download for research/general TDM; opt-out not machine-readable as reported. | +| Google generative models | [In re Google Gen. AI](CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) | Some models out with prejudice; Bard/Gemini/Imagen remain. | +| Open-source Copilot | [Doe v. GitHub](CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) | DMCA CMI dismissed; contract claims live; 9th Cir. argued. | | Chatbot harm | [Garcia](CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES.md) | Design-defect claims proceed; speech defense not established at 12(b)(6). | ## Legal Analysis @@ -216,6 +329,16 @@ Criminal and sanctions cases involving software authors remain on [Documented Pr - `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`. - `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-FIRST-AMENDMENT`. - `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `TOPIC-DEVELOPER-SOFTWARE-LIABILITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`. +- `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` related_to `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`. ## Sources @@ -233,15 +356,32 @@ Criminal and sanctions cases involving software authors remain on [Documented Pr 12. [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT): UMG v. Udio complaint (2024). 13. [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025): Concord MTD denial (2025). 14. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025): GEMA v. OpenAI (2025). +15. [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026): Sony/Warner publisher complaint (2026). +16. [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024): Andersen MTD order (2024). +17. [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT): Disney complaint (2025). +18. [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026): Disney discovery order (2026). +19. [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025): Getty UK judgment (2025). +20. [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024): Doe v. GitHub MTD order (2024). +21. [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET): Doe Ninth Circuit docket. +22. [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143): JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3143. +23. [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025): In re OpenAI output-claim MTD opinion (2025). +24. [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025): Dow Jones v. Perplexity MTD opinion (2025). +25. [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT): Concord II complaint (2026). +26. [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT): BMG v. Anthropic complaint (2026). +27. [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026): Getty U.S. MTD order (2026). +28. [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024): Kneschke LG Hamburg (2024). +29. [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025): Kneschke OLG Hamburg (2025). +30. [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025): In re Google Generative AI MTD order (2025). ## Research Debt - Add Walters v. OpenAI (defamation / ChatGPT hallucinations) with a primary docket and any opinion. -- Add Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK and U.S.) from judgments. - Add EU AI Act public-enforcement matters only with official documents. - Verify Garcia docket for any 2026 settlement or judgment before stating the case is resolved. - Defamation, biometric-privacy, and employment AI cases are not yet in this inventory. +- Add any Ninth Circuit opinion in Doe v. GitHub. +- Add Chicago Tribune and Britannica Perplexity complaints from those PDFs. ## Document metadata -- Last verified: `2026-08-22` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md index 5c0b7dd1..c3a50d40 100644 --- a/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md +++ b/website/generated/source-docs/knowledge/legal/TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT.md @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ id: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT title: Music Copyright and Generative AI type: topic status: draft -summary: Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic, and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. +summary: Music-industry copyright claims against generative AI, covering U.S. sound-recording suits against Suno and Udio, U.S. publisher lyric suits against Anthropic (including Concord II, BMG, and the August 2026 Sony/Warner complaint), and the German first-instance GEMA v. OpenAI judgment. tags: - copyright - artificial-intelligence @@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ sources: - SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025 - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025 - SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025 + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT + - SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026 + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT - SRC-USC-17-107-LII relationships: - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT @@ -56,7 +60,17 @@ relationships: object: STAT-USC-107 sources: - SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER -last_verified: "2026-08-22" + - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026 + - subject: TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT + predicate: related_to + object: CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC + sources: + - SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT +last_verified: "2026-09-02" --- # Generated Source Mirror @@ -70,8 +84,8 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside !!! info "📝 Page Status: Draft — sourced but not yet reviewed" - **Status**: `draft` - - **Sources**: 10 - - **Relationships**: 7 + - **Sources**: 14 + - **Relationships**: 9 - **Research debt items**: 4 --- @@ -80,14 +94,16 @@ This page is generated from the source Markdown file so it can be viewed inside ## Summary -Generative-AI music disputes split along the same two copyright interests the industry has always separated: sound recordings (the recorded performance) and musical compositions (the song, including lyrics). U.S. major labels sued Suno and Udio over alleged unlicensed copying of masters. U.S. publishers sued Anthropic over lyrics in Claude. A German first-instance court held OpenAI liable for memorizing and outputting nine German lyrics. As of the sources reviewed here, no U.S. court had issued a fair-use merits ruling on training a generative music model. +Generative-AI music disputes split along the same two copyright interests the industry has always separated: sound recordings (the recorded performance) and musical compositions (the song, including lyrics). U.S. major labels sued Suno and Udio over alleged unlicensed copying of masters. U.S. publishers sued Anthropic over lyrics in Claude, including Concord/UMG publishers (Concord I and Concord II), BMG, and a later Sony/Warner complaint. A German first-instance court held OpenAI liable for memorizing and outputting nine German lyrics. As of the sources reviewed here, no U.S. court had issued a fair-use merits ruling on training a generative music model. ## Verified Facts - In [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc.](CASE-UMG-V-SUNO.md), Universal, Sony, and Warner affiliates alleged in June 2024 that Suno copied their sound recordings to train a commercial music generator. Suno admitted training on tens of millions of recordings and pleaded fair use. Warner-affiliated plaintiffs later dismissed their claims with prejudice; UMG and Sony claims remained.[^1][^2][^3] - In [UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.](CASE-UMG-V-UDIO.md), the same majors filed a parallel June 2024 sound-recording action against Udio in the Southern District of New York. UMG/Capitol and Warner later dismissed their claims without prejudice. Sony remained and in July 2026 filed a second action asserting 30,117 additional recordings.[^4][^5][^6] - Both original label complaints plead post-1972 infringement under the Copyright Act and pre-1972 infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 1401, and both treat Exhibit A as an illustrative work list.[^1][^4] -- In [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), eight publishers allege that Anthropic used copyrighted lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics. On October 6, 2025, the Northern District of California denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the amended secondary-infringement and DMCA CMI claims.[^7] +- In [Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md), eight publishers allege that Anthropic used copyrighted lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics. On October 6, 2025, the Northern District of California denied Anthropic’s motion to dismiss the amended secondary-infringement and DMCA CMI claims. A second action, Concord II, filed January 28, 2026, alleges torrenting of books containing compositions and was related to Concord I on February 18, 2026.[^7][^12][^13] +- In [BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC.md), BMG sued Anthropic on March 17, 2026, alleging training and output infringement, torrenting, and CMI removal, and identifying Concord I and Concord II as related.[^14] +- In [Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC](CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC.md), Sony and Warner Chappell affiliates sued Anthropic, Dario Amodei, and Benjamin Mann on August 28, 2026, alleging torrenting, scraping, training, output reproduction, and CMI removal as to musical compositions.[^11] - In [GEMA v. OpenAI](CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md), Landgericht München I on November 11, 2025 largely granted GEMA’s claims over nine German lyrics, holding that memorization in models 4 and 4o and output of those lyrics were unauthorized reproductions not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception. The court stated the judgment is not final.[^8][^9] - U.S. fair use is a four-factor, case-specific limitation in [17 U.S.C. § 107](STAT-USC-107.md). Suno’s answer invokes that defense; the label complaints argue it does not apply. No source cited on this page is a U.S. judicial determination of that question for a music generator.[^1][^2][^10] @@ -112,6 +128,14 @@ Generative-AI music disputes split along the same two copyright interests the in [^10]: [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII) — 17 U.S.C. § 107. +[^11]: [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026) — Sony/Warner publisher complaint (Aug. 28, 2026). Pending; allegations. + +[^12]: [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT) — Concord II complaint (Jan. 28, 2026). Pending; allegations. + +[^13]: [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026) — Related-case order (Feb. 18, 2026). + +[^14]: [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT) — BMG complaint (Mar. 17, 2026). Pending; allegations. + ## Historical Context Recorded-music copyright already distinguished the composition from the fixed recording. Generative systems cut across that line. A text model that emits lyrics is a composition problem. An audio model that emits a new recording in the style of existing masters is a sound-recording problem, and sometimes also a composition problem if melody or lyrics are reproduced. The 2024 label complaints treat the second problem as mass infringement of § 106 and § 1401 rights.[^1][^4] The publisher and GEMA matters treat the first as unauthorized reproduction and making available of lyrics.[^7][^8] @@ -141,6 +165,8 @@ Broader authorship and book/news training issues stay on [Copyright and Generati - `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT`. - `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION`. - `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `STAT-USC-107`. +- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC`. +- `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` related_to `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC`. ## Sources @@ -154,14 +180,18 @@ Broader authorship and book/news training issues stay on [Copyright and Generati 8. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025): Munich judgment (2025). 9. [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025): Munich press release (2025). 10. [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-USC-17-107-LII): 17 U.S.C. § 107. +11. [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026): Sony/Warner publisher complaint (2026). +12. [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT): Concord II complaint (2026). +13. [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026): Concord II related-case order (2026). +14. [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT`](../../../bibliography.md#SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT): BMG v. Anthropic complaint (2026). ## Research Debt - Add GEMA v. Suno or other official German audio-model judgments when the court text is available. -- Add any BMG or other publisher complaints against Anthropic or OpenAI from those filings. +- Add Anthropic’s response in Sony/Warner, BMG, and Concord II, and any motion to dismiss. - Add U.S. fair-use or § 1201 orders in the Suno and Udio dockets when they issue. - Do not use lawsuit-tracker royalty or equity figures as facts. ## Document metadata -- Last verified: `2026-08-22` +- Last verified: `2026-09-02` diff --git a/website/generated/timeline.md b/website/generated/timeline.md index aff8edcf..a9b1e629 100644 --- a/website/generated/timeline.md +++ b/website/generated/timeline.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ This page lists legal and historical milestones in chronological order using typed date fields (`decision_date`, `enactment_date`, `legislative_override_date`, `offense_date`, `charge_date`, `arrest_date`, `indictment_date`, and `event_date`). Document publication and verification dates are shown at the bottom of individual pages. Do not edit this file manually. -Event count: 47 +Event count: 54 ## 1976 @@ -109,6 +109,14 @@ Event count: 47 - **Decision**: [`CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-NL-V-PERTSEV.md) — East Brabant District Court judgment ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2024:2069 (May 14, 2024) convicted a Tornado Cash developer of money laundering and imposed a 64-month prison sentence; English judiciary news identifies the defendant as Alexey Pertsev. +## 2024-06-24 + +- **Decision**: [`CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB.md) — Open-source developers’ action alleging that GitHub Copilot training and outputs stripped copyright-management information and breached open-source licenses; the district court dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice, allowed contract claims, and a Ninth Circuit interlocutory appeal was argued in February 2026. + +## 2024-08-12 + +- **Decision**: [`CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY.md) — Pending Northern District of California putative class action by visual artists alleging that Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Runway copied registered works to train image generators; the court allowed Copyright Act claims to proceed and dismissed DMCA claims with prejudice. + ## 2024-08-24 - **Arrest**: [`PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV.md) — Pavel Durov is the founder, owner, and CEO of Telegram; OIR documents Russian and French criminal proceedings alleging platform-related facilitation or moderation failures, including a July 2026 FSB charge and international wanted listing. @@ -117,6 +125,10 @@ Event count: 47 - **Charge**: [`PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV`](source-docs/knowledge/people/PERSON-PAVEL-DUROV.md) — Pavel Durov is the founder, owner, and CEO of Telegram; OIR documents Russian and French criminal proceedings alleging platform-related facilitation or moderation failures, including a July 2026 FSB charge and international wanted listing. +## 2024-09-27 + +- **Decision**: [`CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION.md) — German photographer’s claim against LAION over downloading an image to build an open AI training dataset was dismissed; the Hamburg Regional Court applied the scientific-research text-and-data-mining exception, and the Higher Regional Court affirmed, also applying the general TDM exception. + ## 2024-11-26 - **Decision**: [`CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-VAN-LOON-V-TREASURY.md) — Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury, No. 23-50669 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024), held that Tornado Cash immutable smart contracts are not “property” under IEEPA and that OFAC exceeded its statutory authority by blocking them. @@ -161,14 +173,30 @@ Event count: 47 - **Decision**: [`CASE-US-V-STORM`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-US-V-STORM.md) — United States v. Storm, No. 1:23-cr-00430 (S.D.N.Y.), is the federal criminal prosecution of Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm; in August 2025 he was convicted of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business. +## 2025-08-21 + +- **Decision**: [`CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY.md) — Pending Southern District of New York copyright and trademark action by the Wall Street Journal and New York Post against Perplexity’s answer engine; the court denied motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. Related Times and Tribune actions against Perplexity were later filed in the same district. + +## 2025-09-11 + +- **Decision**: [`CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI.md) — Pending Northern District of California putative class action alleging Google trained generative models on copyrighted text and images; the court dismissed with prejudice claims as to specified models and vicarious claims against Alphabet, leaving Bard, Gemini, Imagen, and related model claims. + ## 2025-10-06 -- **Decision**: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) — Pending Northern District of California publisher action alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims. +- **Decision**: [`CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC.md) — Pending Northern District of California publisher actions alleging that Anthropic copied song lyrics to train Claude and that outputs reproduce those lyrics; the court denied Anthropic’s second motion to dismiss secondary-infringement and DMCA claims in Concord I, and a later Concord II complaint alleges torrenting of books containing compositions. ## 2025-10-13 - **Enactment**: [`STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/STAT-CA-DIGITAL-AGE-ASSURANCE-ACT.md) — California’s Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043; Civ. Code Title 1.81.9) requires operating system providers to collect age at account setup and send age-bracket signals to apps, and requires developers to request those signals; effective January 1, 2026 and operative January 1, 2027. +## 2025-10-27 + +- **Decision**: [`CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI.md) — Multidistrict copyright litigation in the Southern District of New York consolidating author and publisher actions against OpenAI and Microsoft; the court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss author class claims based on alleged ChatGPT outputs without deciding fair use. + +## 2025-11-04 + +- **Decision**: [`CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY.md) — English High Court trial judgment dismissing Getty’s secondary-copyright claim that Stable Diffusion was an infringing copy, after Getty abandoned UK training and output copyright claims, with limited historic trade-mark findings; a later Northern District of California action over the same models remains at the pleading stage. + ## 2025-11-11 - **Decision**: [`CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI`](source-docs/knowledge/legal/CASE-GEMA-V-OPENAI.md) — First-instance Munich judgment holding that memorization of nine German song lyrics in OpenAI models 4 and 4o, and output of those lyrics, infringed copyright and was not covered by the text-and-data-mining exception; the decision is not final. diff --git a/website/generated/used-for.md b/website/generated/used-for.md index d2c756f8..de37290c 100644 --- a/website/generated/used-for.md +++ b/website/generated/used-for.md @@ -2,7 +2,12 @@ This page is generated from `Used For` sections in source records. Do not edit it manually. -Term count: 198 +Term count: 208 + +## `CASE-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY` { #case-andersen-v-stability } + +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 3:23-cv-00201)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) ## `CASE-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC` { #case-bartz-v-anthropic } @@ -16,6 +21,10 @@ Term count: 198 - [`SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF-25: EFF at 25 - Remembering the Case that Established Code as Speech`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-EFF-25.md) - [`SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA: Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1999) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BERNSTEIN-JUSTIA.md) +## `CASE-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC` { #case-bmg-v-anthropic } + +- [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) + ## `CASE-BROWN-V-ENTERTAINMENT-MERCHANTS` { #case-brown-v-entertainment-merchants } - [`SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (GovInfo)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BROWN-V-EMA-GOVINFO.md) @@ -46,9 +55,27 @@ Term count: 198 ## `CASE-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC` { #case-concord-v-anthropic } +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Related Case Order (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-RELATED-2026.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) +## `CASE-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY` { #case-disney-v-midjourney } + +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md) + +## `CASE-DOE-V-GITHUB` { #case-doe-v-github } + +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET: Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) + +## `CASE-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY` { #case-dow-jones-v-perplexity } + +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07984)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET: The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) + ## `CASE-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-TECHNOLOGIES` { #case-garcia-v-character-technologies } - [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md) @@ -59,10 +86,25 @@ Term count: 198 - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md) +## `CASE-GETTY-V-STABILITY` { #case-getty-v-stability } + +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) + ## `CASE-GOOGLE-V-ORACLE` { #case-google-v-oracle } - [`SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) (Justia)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-ORACLE-JUSTIA.md) +## `CASE-IN-RE-GOOGLE-GEN-AI` { #case-in-re-google-gen-ai } + +- [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) + +## `CASE-IN-RE-OPENAI` { #case-in-re-openai } + +- [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025: In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) + ## `CASE-JUNGER-V-DALEY` { #case-junger-v-daley } - [`SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO: Junger v. Daley ACLU Ohio Case Page`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JUNGER-ACLU-OHIO.md) @@ -73,6 +115,11 @@ Term count: 198 - [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md) - [`SRC-USC-17-107-LII: 17 U.S.C. § 107`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-USC-17-107-LII.md) +## `CASE-KNESCHKE-V-LAION` { #case-kneschke-v-laion } + +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) + ## `CASE-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL` { #case-lenz-v-universal } - [`SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-LENZ-V-UNIVERSAL-CA9.md) @@ -89,6 +136,7 @@ Term count: 198 - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET: The New York Times Company v. Perplexity AI, Inc., CourtListener docket (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10106)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-PERPLEXITY-DOCKET.md) ## `CASE-PACKINGHAM-V-NC` { #case-packingham-v-nc } @@ -106,6 +154,10 @@ Term count: 198 - [`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-JUSTIA.md) - [`SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (U.S. Reports PDF)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-RENO-V-ACLU-LOC.md) +## `CASE-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC` { #case-sony-v-anthropic } + +- [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) + ## `CASE-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM` { #case-spyder-v-mementum } - [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md) @@ -648,14 +700,30 @@ Term count: 198 ## `TOPIC-AI-COPYRIGHT` { #topic-ai-copyright } +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md) +- [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET: Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) +- [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025: In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) - [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) - [`SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT: Spyder Games LLC v. Mementum Lab, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SPYDER-V-MEMENTUM-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC: Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THALER-V-PERLMUTTER-CADC.md) - [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md) @@ -669,26 +737,45 @@ Term count: 198 ## `TOPIC-AI-LITIGATION` { #topic-ai-litigation } +- [`SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024: Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd., Order on Motions to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-ANDERSEN-V-STABILITY-MTD-2024.md) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order on Fair Use (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FAIR-USE.md) - [`SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL: Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BARTZ-V-ANTHROPIC-FINAL-APPROVAL.md) +- [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Complaint (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026: Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Midjourney, Inc., Order on Motion to Compel (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DISNEY-V-MIDJOURNEY-MTC-2026.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET: Doe v. GitHub, Inc., CourtListener docket (9th Cir. No. 24-7700)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-9THCIR-DOCKET.md) +- [`SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024: Doe 1 v. GitHub, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOE-V-GITHUB-MTD-2024.md) +- [`SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025: Dow Jones & Co. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-DOW-JONES-V-PERPLEXITY-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Complaint (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025: Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., Order on Motions to Dismiss (M.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GARCIA-V-CHARACTER-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd. [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-EWHC-2025.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026: Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Ltd., Order on Motion to Dismiss (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GETTY-V-STABILITY-US-MTD-2026.md) +- [`SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025: In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GOOGLE-GEN-AI-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025: In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss Output Claims (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-IN-RE-OPENAI-OUTPUT-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143: In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, JPML Transfer Order (MDL No. 3143)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-JPML-OPENAI-MDL-3143.md) - [`SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE: Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KADREY-V-META-FAIR-USE.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., LG Hamburg, 310 O 227/23 (Sept. 27, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-LG-HAMBURG-2024.md) +- [`SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025: Kneschke v. LAION e.V., OLG Hamburg press report, 5 U 104/24 (Dec. 10, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-KNESCHKE-OLG-HAMBURG-2025.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Order on Rule 12(c) Contributory Claims (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-12C-2026.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2023)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025: The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corp., Opinion on Motions to Dismiss (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-NYT-V-OPENAI-MTD-2025.md) +- [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) - [`SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-THOMSON-REUTERS-V-ROSS-2025.md) - [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-UDIO-COMPLAINT.md) ## `TOPIC-AI-MUSIC-COPYRIGHT` { #topic-ai-music-copyright } +- [`SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT: BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-BMG-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT.md) +- [`SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. No. 5:26-cv-00880, Jan. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-II-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, CourtListener docket (N.D. Cal. No. 5:24-cv-03811)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-DOCKET.md) - [`SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025: Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss FAC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-CONCORD-V-ANTHROPIC-MTD-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025: LG München I, Endurteil v. 11.11.2025 – 42 O 14139/24 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-LG-MUENCHEN-2025.md) - [`SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025: Landgericht München I, Pressemitteilung 11/2025 (GEMA v. OpenAI)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-GEMA-V-OPENAI-PRESS-2025.md) +- [`SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026: Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Anthropic PBC, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-ANTHROPIC-COMPLAINT-2026.md) - [`SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT: Sony Music Entertainment v. Uncharted Labs, Inc., Complaint (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-SONY-V-UDIO-2026-COMPLAINT.md) - [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Answer of Defendant Suno (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-ANSWER.md) - [`SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT: UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc., Complaint (D. Mass. June 24, 2024)`](source-docs/bibliography/legal/SRC-UMG-V-SUNO-COMPLAINT.md)