U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin for Northern California in San Francisico granted the plaintiffs’ motion to relate the later-filed case Silverman v. OpenAI to Tremblay v. OpenAI, said her Friday order (docket 3:23-cv-03223). The plaintiffs in both cases allege OpenAI and several of its subsidiaries created, maintained and operated ChatGPT software in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The actions assert the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the DMCA by removing copyright management information (CMI) from plaintiffs’ infringed works and redistributing those works via ChatGPT without CMI or with false CMI. Both lawsuits claim vicarious copyright infringement, unfair competition, negligence and unjust enrichment and request damages, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered OpenAI to file a response to plaintiff Paul Tremblay’s motion to relate (see 2307200047) a copyright infringement case with comic Sarah Silverman’s class action, said her text-only order (docket 3:23-cv-03223) Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. OpenAI may file an opposition, a statement of support, or a statement of non-opposition by 3 p.m. PDT Friday. Plaintiffs in both cases allege OpenAI and several of its subsidiaries engaged in the creation, maintenance and operation of ChatGPT software in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Both actions assert defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights under the DMCA by removing copyright management information (CMI) from the infringed works and redistributing those works via ChatGPT without CMI or with false CMI, said the motion. Both lawsuits claim vicarious copyright infringement, unfair competition, negligence and unjust enrichment and request damages, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Not relating the cases will result in duplication of efforts, increased burden on the courts and expense for the parties, Tremblay's motion said.

Comic Sarah Silverman’s copyright infringement class action should be related to the similar Tremblay v. OpenAI class action (see 2306300032), said plaintiff Paul Tremblay Wednesday in an administrative motion (docket 3:23-cv-03223) to consider whether cases should be related in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Plaintiffs in both cases allege OpenAI and several of its subsidiaries engaged in creation, maintenance and operation of ChatGPT software in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Both actions assert defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights under the DMCA by removing copyright management information (CMI) from the infringed works and redistributing those works via ChatGPT without CMI or with false CMI, said the motion. Both lawsuits claim vicarious copyright infringement, unfair competition, negligence and unjust enrichment and request damages, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Not relating the cases will result in duplication of efforts, increased burden on the courts and expense for the parties, the motion said. Five of the seven defendants in the Tremblay action have been served but haven't appeared; as a result, plaintiffs can’t seek a stipulation nor confirm whether any or all defendants plan to oppose the motion, it said.

Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and eight music publishers sued Get Smashed Radio Broadcasting Network, and several of its executives Thursday, for copyright infringement (docket 1:23-cv-01720), said a complaint Thursday in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. Plaintiffs allege KMZK(FM) Clifton, serving the Grand Junction, Colorado, area, willfully infringed their copyrights four times based on their unauthorized public performances of musical compositions from the BMI collection. BMI contacted defendants over 10 times since August 2021 by phone, mail and email – including cease and desist notices -- in an effort to “educate” the defendants about their obligations under the Copyright Act and their need to buy a license for public performance of musical compositions in the BMI repertoire, it said. In another case (docket 2:23-cv-01229), BMI, with 16 other music copyright holders, sued Bonfire Craft Kitchen, in Surprise, Arizona, for 11 claims of willful copyright infringement of their music from BMI’s library. BMI contacted the restaurant over 40 times since September 2020, informing them they must immediately cease all use of BMI-licensed music, said the July 3 complaint. In both lawsuits, plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the defendants from infringing musical works licensed by BMI, plus statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and legal costs.

The parties in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint brought against GitHub, Microsoft and OpenAI agree a jury trial would last 13 days but disagree when it should be scheduled, said a joint Rule 26(f) report Wednesday (docket 4:22-cv-06823) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland in advance of a July 11 case management conference. The plaintiffs are five John Does who are GitHub users and posted code on GitHub under one or more of the platform’s “suggested licenses.” They allege the defendants, all AI system developers, violated their rights by using their code to “train” GitHub Copilot and OpenAI’s Codex without following the terms of the applicable open-source licenses and without other permission. They further allege the defendants continue to violate their rights through the distribution and operation of Copilot and Codex. The defendants deny they violated any of the plaintiffs’ rights, and moved to dismiss all the claims. The plaintiffs are proposing a trial date of Sept. 29, 2025, said the report. The defendants are proposing Feb. 4, 2026, it said.

Plaintiff Charming Beats dismissed a copyright infringement suit against Penguin Random House, said a Friday notice (docket 1:23-cv-03946) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. The music publisher alleged the book publisher created a YouTube video ad using a Charming Beats’ copyrighted track without authorization (see 2305120031). Plaintiffs will pay their own legal costs, it said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell set a 90-minute Zoom hearing for July 25 at 10 a.m. CDT on defendant Grande Communications Networks’ opposed motion to stay execution of judgment and its motion for a waiver of bond, said a Thursday order (see docket 1:17-cv-00365) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. Grande, seeking to vacate a Nov. 3 jury verdict awarding Universal Music Group and other music labels $46.8 million in damages for Grande’s willful contributory infringement of 1,403 copyrighted works, said Wednesday a requirement that it post a bond pending its appeal of the lawsuit is a “punitive measure that would serve only to enrich the company that issues the bond.” In its Wednesday reply in support of its motion for stay and the bond waiver, Grande said it presented a “sworn declaration” with evidence showing it can draw on a $455 million revolving line of credit through at least 2025 to satisfy the judgment. “That is more than enough to show that it would be a waste of money to require Grande to spend $4 million per year on a bond,” it said.

Both sides want oral argument in Yout’s 2nd U.S. Circuit Court appeal against the Recording Industry Association of America, said separate signed statements filed Thursday by counsel for Yout and the RIAA (docket 22-2760). Yout’s 2nd Circuit opening brief argued the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut “improperly” granted the RIAA’s motion to dismiss Yout’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint, “erroneously concluding” that Yout’s YouTube-ripping software platform was a circumvention tool (see 2302030005). Yout can’t “plausibly plead” it doesn’t violate the statute, said RIAA’s answering brief (see 2305050001).

BMI contacted Palm Bay, Florida, restaurant The Shack Riverfront over 60 times since October 2020 by phone, mail and email about the need to buy a license for public performance of music in the BMI portfolio, said a Thursday copyright infringement lawsuit (docket 6:23-cv-00857) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. In the seven-claim suit, BMI and eight music publishers allege the restaurant publicly performs musical compositions without authorization. Among the letters it sent were cease and desist notices giving the establishment formal notice that it must immediately stop use of all BMI-licensed music, the complaint said. BMI seeks orders that the restaurant is enjoined from infringing BMI-licensed music and that it must pay statutory damages and attorneys’ fees, it said.

U.S. District Judge David Ezra for Western Texas in Austin denied Grande Communications Networks’ Feb. 27 renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial in its effort to vacate a Nov. 3 jury verdict awarding major record labels $46.8 million in damages for Grande’s secondary copyright infringement (see 2303010018), said Ezra’s signed order Thursday (docket 1:17-cv-00365). The labels argued, and the jury agreed, that Grande ignored the direct infringement of its internet subscribers. The plaintiff record companies “provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Grande materially contributed to its users’ direct infringement by failing to terminate users after learning of their specific, often repeated, infringement,” said Ezra’s order. “Accordingly, judgment as a matter of law is not proper on this point,” it said. “Neither Grande’s legal nor evidentiary arguments warrant judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.”