Category: AI Copyright – Overviews

Copyright issues raised by artificial intelligence, especially generative-AI – summaries of legal issues and topics; roundups of lawsuits, cases and litigation; and overviews and notes about statutory and other legislative developments

Copyright Litigation Update

A roundup of some developments in the copyright world. The Copyright Claims Board issues its first attorney fee award. The Bartz v. Anthropic generative-AI class action settlement is approved. Generative-AI companies have been adding copyright guardrails to their products. Information about a website that is tracking AI lawsuits, and the latest Buc-ee’s trademark lawsuit.

“Go Home, Ball!”

PerfectPinz LLC v. K9 King, LLC

PerfectPinz LLC (“PerfectPinz”) sells golf paraphernalia. It created four cartoon images depicting scenes from the Adam Sandler movie, Happy Gilmore.

One of the images is a cartoon image of the Happy Gilmore character on the ground, yelling at a golf ball to get in the cup (“Go home, ball!”) Another cartoon image of Mr. Gilmore is captioned “Just Tap It In.” A third one is a cartoonized version of the scene in the movie in which he brawls with Bob Barker. It is captioned, “The Price Is Wrong.” The last image depicts the Gilmore and Chubbs characters and is captioned “It’s All in the Hips.”

K9 King also produced golf paraphernalia based on these same scenes from Happy Gilmore.

Apparently, neither party secured permission from Universal Pictures to copy or make derivative works based on the movie.

PerfectPinz LLC filed a copyright infringement claim against K9 King, LLC in the Copyright Claims Board (CCB). The Board denied the claim.

To prevail on a copyright infringement claim, a plaintiff must prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) unauthorized exercise of one of the exclusive rights of copyright ownership, such as the right to make copies of the original elements of the work. The Board rested its decision on the second requirement, ruling that PerfectPinz had not established that K9 King copied enough elements of the works that were original to PerfectPinz to qualify as infringement.

Comparisons of Happy Gilmore movie stills with cartoon images created by PerfectPinz and K9King
Images for comparison, from the complaint filed with the CCB

Because the copied elements were copies of scenes from the movie, they were not original to PerfectPrinz. Therefore, the Board ruled that K9 King had not copied any content original to PerfectPinz’s images.

Sanctions

The Board found that PerfectPinz acted in bad faith in failing to mention that the scenes it depicted in its images were copies of scenes in Happy Gilmore. This was not mentioned in the copyright registrations, either. This omission, the Board held, warranted an award of attorney fees to K9 King, in the amount of $900.

This is the first time the CCB has awarded attorney fees in a case. It is also one of those very rare times when a company that has made an unauthorized derivative work sues another company for also making an unauthorized derivative of the same work.

Bartz v. Anthropic Settlement Approved

Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC

As I described in a 2025 blog post (“Ai OK; Piracy Not: Bartz v. Anthropic“), a federal district court in California last year determined that Anthropic is liable for copyright infringement in connection with its unauthorized copying of copyright-protected works to use in training its generative AI. Since then, the parties have entered into a settlement.

On July 20, 2026, the court issued an Order approving the settlement and awarding attorney fees. The settlement fund consists of $1.5 billion plus interest. $101,561,111 of it will go to the attorneys and several million dollars will be applied toward reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred and to be incurred in the future.

Copyright Infringement Guardrails

While this is not news about a court case, it is about a response to copyright infringement litigation.

As I explained in Generative AI: The Top 12 Lawsuits, OpenAI has been sued more than once for copyright infringement in connection with the training of its generative AI product, ChatGPT.

In Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., authors alleged that ChatGPT was trained on the text of books they and other proposed class members authored, without their permission, and that it facilitates output copyright infringement. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized dozens of AI copyright lawsuits against OpenAI into a single venue: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In Re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation. Tremblay is included in this consolidation.

Silverman et al. v. OpenAI is another such lawsuit. Sarah Silverman (comedian/actress/writer) and others alleged that OpenAI, by using copyright-protected works without permission to train ChatGPT, infringed copyrights. The case was subsequently consolidated into the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of New York.

Blocking users from reproducing large swaths of text from books or creating derivative works based on books used during training are “guardrails” against output infringement. According to Ars Technica, OpenAI’s ChatGPT is now refusing user requests to generate text that mimics the style of famous authors.

To test this, I prompted ChatGPT to “write something in the style of Tom James.” Here is the response I received:

ChatGPT response to prompt to write in the style of Tom James, author of Tuber Tips

As it happens, I am indeed the author of Tuber Tips, an offbeat compilation of whimsical and completely worthless suggestions of uses for sweet potatoes, along with some actual recipes. I had kind of hoped my name might bring to mind E-Commerce Law or IP Law for Non-IP Attorneys, but such is life.

The snippet it produced was completely bereft of humor. Everything in it was completely practical. The guardrails appear to be working.

AI Litigation Tracker

The website ExhibitAI.info is tracking “every lawsuit shaping the future of advanced AI.” The coverage spans 190 cases, 342 claims, 47 defendants, 117 plaintiff firms, and 44 courts.

The dataset reportedly is “updated continuously as new cases are filed and decided across jurisdictions.”

The dataset can be filtered by case type (copyright, tort, trademark, etc.), claims, date filed, defendants, forum, etc.

It looks like it could be a useful resource.

Buc-ee’s Redux

In a previous post (“Last Exit from Paradise“) I mentioned a trademark infringement lawsuit that Buc-ee’s, a popular chain of gas-and-convenience stores in the South. filed against Mickey’s gas stations. Well, now it has filed another one. This time, it is against Ohio-based Hanes Road Carryout, Inc.

Hanes Road Carryout, Inc. operates Beaver’s Mini Mart in Beavercreek, Ohio.. The complaint alleges that their logo is confusingly similar to Buc-ee’s because it “incorporate[s] a cartoon beaver with wide eyes and a smile” and “uses red as a predominant color in its exterior signage with its anthropomorphic representation of a cartoon beaver mascot.”

Beaver's MiniMart sign

(Top: Buc-ee’s logo. Bottom: Beaver’s Mini Mart logo.)

What do you think, Beave?

Jerry Mathers (Leave It To Beaver actor)

Need help with a CCB case?

If you need help with a CCB case or other copyright matter, contact the Law Office of Tom James.

Top Copyright Cases of 2024

Many AI-related copyright lawsuits continued to proceed through the courts

Warner Chappell Music Inc. v. Nealy

The Copyright Act imposes a three-year period of limitations for copyright infringement claims. There has been a split in the circuits about whether this means that damages could be claimed only for infringement occurring during the three-year period or whether damages could be recovered for earlier acts of infringement so long as the claim is timely filed. The Supreme Court has now resolved the split.

The issue arises in cases where a claimant invokes the discovery rule. The general rule is that a limitations period runs from the date of the act giving rise to the cause of action. The discovery rule, by contrast, measures the limitations period from the date the infringing act is discovered. Thus, for example, if an infringing act occurred in 2012 but the copyright owner did not learn about it until 2022, then under the traditional rule, the claim would be time-barred. Under the discovery rule, it would not be.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in this case is to the effect that if the discovery rule applies in the jurisdiction where suit is filed, and a claimant properly invokes it, then damages are not limited to the three years preceding suit. Rather, any damages incurred since the date of the infringing act are recoverable.

The Court did not rule on the validity of the discovery rule.

Warner Chappell Music Inc.. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. ____ (2024).

 Hachette Book Group Inc. v. Internet Archive

I wrote about Hachette Book Group v. Internet Archive back in 2022, when it was at the summary judgment stage in the district court for the Southern District of New York. Astute readers with much better memory than I possess will recall that I included in my list of the top copyright cases os 2022. The complaint, filed by book publishers, alleged that the Internet Archive made digital copies of over a million print books and then freely distributed the copies to members of the public, all without the permission of the copyright owners. In 2023, the district judge ruled in favor of the publishers, holding that the enterprise was not “fair use.” It subsequently issued an injunction against further scanning and distribution of books. (See A Copyright Win in the Internet Archive Lawsuit.) This year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

To some, the decision might seem like a no-brainer. Copying other people’s books and giving them away for free, without the copyright owners’ permission, sounds like core copyright infringement, right? Yet, before the Warhol v. Goldsmith decision in 2023, courts had been applying such an expansive view of the “transformative use” branch of fair use that some people thought that making digital copies of a print book was categorically “transformative” and therefore fair use. This decision makes it clear that no, it isn’t.

The Internet Archive has said it will not appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

Hachette Book Group Inc. et al. v. Internet Archive, No. 23-1260 (2nd Cir. 2024)

Griner v. King

U.S. Representative Steve King’s campaign committee used a copyright-protected photograph in his campaign without permission. King’s committee had argued fair use and that it had an “implied license” to use the image because it had been widely circulated as a meme on the Internet. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Iowa jury’s verdict for the copyright owner.

Griner et al. v. King et al., No. 23-2117, (8th Cir. 2024)

The Intercept Media v. OpenAI

This isn’t really a momentous decision, in terms of precedential value, but it is the first major victory for Big AI in the plethora of AI-related lawsuits they are facing.

The Intercept Media, Inc. sued OpenAI and Microsoft Corporation for alleged Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violations in connection with training the AI tool, ChatGPT. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On November 21, 2024 the New York court dismissed claims against Microsoft with prejudice. The court dismissed the 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)(3) claim against OpenAI but allowed the claim under 17 U.S.C. §1202(b)(1) to proceed.  

Section 1202(b)(1) prohibits unauthorized removal or alteration of copyright management information, including author information and the copyright notice.

The Intercept Media Inc. v. OpenAI Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01515, (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2024).

Stay tuned…

Many AI-related copyright lawsuits continued to proceed through the courts in 2024, with decisions expected in 2025 or later.

Visit my extensive Copyright FAQs page.

 

AI Lawsuits Roundup

A status update on 24 pending lawsuits against AI companies – what they’re about and what is happening in court – prepared by Minnesota copyright attorney Thomas James.

Advancements in artificial intelligence technology, including generative-AI, have introduced a wide range of new or exacerbated legal problems. Collectively, I call these AI legal issues. Although not all of them are unique to scenarios involving AI, they are certainly testing and stretching the capacity of legal institutions. Here is a very brief summary of how these issues are playing out in the courts, as of February 28, 2024. 

Copyright

Stephen Thaler's AI-generated artwork, "A Recent Entrance to Paradise"

Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. 2022).

Complaint filed June 2, 2022. Thaler created an AI system called the Creativity Machine. He applied to register copyrights in the output he generated with it. The Copyright Office refused registration on the ground that AI output does not meet the “human authorship” requirement. (I explained that requirement in a previous blog post that explored the difference between human and AI creation of a work. He then sought judicial review. The district court granted summary judgment for the Copyright Office. (See A Recent Exit from Paradise.) In October, 2023, Thaler filed an appeal to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals (Case no. 23-5233).

Doe v. GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI (N.D. Cal. 2022)

I wrote about this case in Generative AI: The Top 12 Lawsuits.  The complaint was filed November 3, 2022. Software developers claim the defendants trained Codex and Copilot on code derived from theirs, which they published on GitHub. Some claims have been dismissed, but claims that GitHub and OpenAI violated the DMCA and breached open source licenses remain. Discovery is ongoing.

Andersen v. Stability AI (N.D. Cal. 2023)

The Andersen v. Stability AI complaint was filed January 13, 1023. Visual artists sued Midjourney, Stability AI and DeviantArt for copyright infringement for allegedly training their generative-AI models on images scraped from the Internet without copyright holders’ permission. Other claims included DMCA violations, publicity rights violations, unfair competition, breach of contract, and a claim that output images are infringing derivative works. On October 30, 2023, the court largely granted motions to dismiss, but granted leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 29, 2023. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Hearing on the motion is set for May 8, 2024.

Getty Images v. StabilityAI (U.K. 2023)

Complaint filed January, 2023. Getty Images claims StabilityAI scraped images without its consent. The Getty Images lawsuit has survived a motion to dismiss. The case appears to be heading to trial.

In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed June 28, 3023. Originally captioned Tremblay v. OpenAI. Book authors sued OpenAI for direct and vicarious copyright infringement, DMCA violations, unfair competition and negligence. Both input (training) and output (derivative works) claims are alleged, as well as state law claims of unfair competition, etc.

Most state law and DMCA claims have been dismissed, but claims based on unauthorized copying during the AI training process remain. An amended complaint is likely to come in March. The court has directed the amended complaint to consolidate Tremblay v. OpenAI, Chabon v. OpenAI, and Silverman v. OpenAI.  

Kadrey v. Meta (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed July 7, 2023. Sarah Silverman and other authors allege Meta infringed copyrights in their works by making copies of them while training Meta’s AI model; that the AI model is itself an infringing derivative work; and that outputs are infringing copies of their works. Plaintiffs also allege DMCA violations, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The court granted Meta’s motion to dismiss all claims except the claim that unauthorized copies were made during the AI training process. An amended complaint and answer have been filed.

In 2025, Judge Chhabria ruled in Meta’s favor on fair use with respect to AI training; reserved the motion for summary judgment on the DMCA claims for decision in a separate order, and held that the claim of infringing distribution via leeching or seeding “will remain a live issue in the case.” Kadrey v. Meta Platforms. 

J.L. v. Google (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed July 11, 2023. In another case I mentioned in Generative AI: The Top 12 Lawsuits, an author filed a complaint against Google alleging misuse of content posted on social media and Google platforms to train Google’s AI Bard. (Gemini is the successor to Google’s Bard.) Claims include copyright infringement, DMCA violations, and others. J.L. filed an amended complaint and Google has filed a motion to dismiss it. A hearing is scheduled for May 16, 2024.

Chabon v. OpenAI (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed September 9, 2023. Authors allege that OpenAI infringed copyrights while training ChatGPT, and that ChatGPT is itself an unauthorized derivative work. They also assert claims of DMCA violations, unfair competition, negligence and unjust enrichment. Chabon v. OpenAI has been consolidated with Tremblay v. OpenAI, and the cases are now captioned In re OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation.

Chabon v. Meta Platforms (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed September 12, 2023. Authors assert copyright infringement claims against Meta, alleging that Meta trained its AI using their works and that the AI model itself is an unauthorized derivative work. The authors also assert claims for DMCA violations, unfair competition, negligence, and unjust enrichment. In November, 2023, the court issued an Order dismissing all claims except the claim of unauthorized copying in the course of training the AI. The court described the claim that an AI model trained on a work is a derivative of that work as “nonsensical.” Chabon v. Mea Platforms.

Authors Guild v. OpenAI, Microsoft, et al. (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Complaint filed September 19, 1023. Book and fiction writers filed a complaint for copyright infringement in connection with defendants’ training AI on copies of their works without permission. A motion to dismiss has been filed. Authors Guild v. Open AI et al.

Huckabee v. Bloomberg, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, and EleutherAI Institute (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Complaint filed October 17, 2023. Political figure Mike Huckabee and others allege that the defendants trained AI tools on their works without permission when they used Books3, a text dataset compiled by developers; that their tools are themselves unauthorized derivative works; and that every output of their tools is an infringing derivative work.  Claims against EleutherAI have been voluntarily dismissed. Claims against Meta and Microsoft have been transferred to the Northern District of California. Bloomberg is expected to file a motion to dismiss soon. Huckabee v. Bloomberg et al.

Huckabee v. Meta Platforms and Microsoft (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed October 17, 2023. Political figure Mike Huckabee and others allege that the defendants trained AI tools on their works without permission when they used Books3, a text dataset compiled by developers; that their tools are themselves unauthorized derivative works; and that every output of their tools is an infringing derivative work. Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint. Plaintiffs have stipulated to dismissal of claims against Microsoft without prejudice. Huckabee v. Meta Platforms and Microsoft.

Concord Music Group v. Anthropic (M.D. Tenn. 2023)

Complaint filed October 18, 2023. Music publishers claim that Anthropic infringed publisher-owned copyrights in song lyrics when they allegedly were copied as part of an AI training process (Claude) and when lyrics were reproduced and distributed in response to prompts. They have also made claims of contributory and vicarious infringement. Motions to dismiss and for a preliminary injunction are pending. Concord Music Group v. Anthropic.

Alter v. OpenAI and Microsoft (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Complaint filed November 21, 2023. Nonfiction author alleges claims of copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that reproducing copies of their works in datasets used to train AI infringed copyrights. The court has ordered consolidation of Author’s Guild (23-cv-8292) and Alter (23-cv-10211). On February 12,2024, plaintiffs in other cases filed a motion to intervene and dismiss. Alter v. OpenAI and Microsoft.

New York Times v. Microsoft and OpenAI (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

Complaint filed December 27, 2023. The New York Times alleges that their news stories were used to train AI without a license or permission, in violation of their exclusive rights of reproduction and public display, as copyright owners. The complaint also alleges vicarious and contributory copyright infringement, DMCA violations, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. The Times seeks damages, an injunction against further infringing conduct, and a Section 503(b) order for the destruction of “all GPT or other LLM models and training sets that incorporate Times Works.” On February 23, 2024, plaintiffs in other cases filed a motion to intervene and dismiss this case. New York Times v. Microsoft and OpenAI.

Basbanes and Ngagoyeanes v. Microsoft and OpenAI (S.D.N.Y. 2024)

Complaint filed January 5, 2024. Nonfiction authors assert copyright claims against Microsoft and OpenAI. On February 6, 2024, the court consolidated this case with Authors Guild (23-cv-08292) and Alter v. Open AI (23-cv-10211), for pretrial purposes. Basbanes and Ngagoyeanes v. Microsoft and OpenAI.

Trademark

Getty Images v. Stability AI (D. Del.)

AI-generated image of female soccer players with wrong number and position of limbs, and "Getty Images" logo on it

Getty Images v. Stability AI Complaint filed on February 3, 2023. Getty Images alleges claims of copyright infringement, DMCA violation and trademark violations against Stability AI. The judge has dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss or transfer on jurisdictional grounds. The motion may be re-filed after the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery, which is ongoing.

Privacy and Publicity Rights

Flora v. Prisma Labs (N.D. Cal.)

Complaint filed February 15, 2023. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act in connection with Prisma Labs’ collection and retention of users’ selfies in AI training. The court has granted Prisma’s motion to compel arbitration. Flora v. Prisma Labs. 

Kyland Young v. NeoCortext (C.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed April 3, 2023. This complaint alleges that AI tool Reface used a person’s image without consent, in violation of the person’s publicity rights under California law. The court has denied a motion to dismiss, ruling that publicity rights claims are not preempted by federal copyright law. The case has been stayed pending appeal. Kyland Young v. NeoCortext.

Complaint filed June 28, 2023. Users claim OpenAI violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California wiretapping laws by collecting their data when they input content into ChatGPT. They also claim violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case on September 15, 2023. See now A.T. v. OpenAI (N.D. Cal. 2023) (below). P.M. v. OpenAI.

A.T. v. OpenAI (N.D. Cal. 2023)

Complaint filed September 5, 2023. ChatGPT users claim the company violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and California Penal Code section 631 (wiretapping). The gravamen of the complaint is that ChatGPT allegedly accessed users’ platform access and intercepted their private information without their knowledge or consent. Motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration are pending. A.T. v. OpenAI.

Defamation

Walters v. OpenAI (Gwinnett County Super. Ct. 2023), and Walters v. OpenAI (N.D. Ga. 2023)

Gwinnett County complaint filed June 5, 2023.

Federal district court complaint filed July 14, 2023.

Radio Radio talk show host sued OpenAI for defamation. A reporter had used ChatGPT to get information about him. ChatGPT wrongly described him as a person who had been accused of fraud. In October, 2023, the federal court remanded the case to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.  On January 11, 2024, the Gwinnett County Superior Court denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss. Walters v. OpenAI. 

Battle v. Microsoft (D. Md. 2023)

Complaint filed July 7, 2023. Pro se defamation complaint against Microsoft alleging that Bing falsely described him as a member of the “Portland Seven,” a group of Americans who tried to join the Taliban after 9/11. Battle v. Microsoft.

Caveat

This list is not exhaustive. There may be other cases involving AI that are not included here. For a discussion of bias issues in Google’s Gemini, have a look at Scraping Bias.

Visit my extensive Copyright FAQs page.