Library IV, a steak and seafood restaurant in Williamstown, New Jersey, and owner Brian O’Keeney are guilty of six claims of willful copyright infringement, based on their unauthorized public performance of musical compositions from the BMI repertoire, alleged BMI and six music publishers in a complaint Friday (docket 3:24-cv-02042) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton. The claims for copyright infringement joined in the complaint "are governed by the same legal rules and involve similar facts," said the lawsuit. Joinder of these claims “will promote the convenient administration of justice and will avoid a multiplicity of separate, similar actions” against O’Keeney and his restaurant, it said. BMI has reached out to O’Keeney and his restaurant more than 50 times since February 2023 in an effort to educate them about their obligations under the Copyright Act “with respect to the necessity of purchasing a license for the public performance of musical compositions” in the BMI repertoire, it said. Included in the letters were cease and desist warnings, providing them with formal notice that they must immediately cease all use of BMI-licensed music in the establishment, it said.
Microsoft submitted as supplemental authority a March 1 order denying Tremblay v. OpenAI plaintiffs' motion to enjoin OpenAI and Microsoft from defending themselves in the four copyright infringement cases pending in the U.S. District Court for Southern New York (see 2403040018), said Microsoft’s letter Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-00084) to U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein in Manhattan. The order, by U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin for Northern California in San Francisco, said the Tremblay plaintiffs “pointed to no authority allowing the court to enjoin OpenAI from defending against litigation in a second district court case." Microsoft has joined with the plaintiffs in the four New York actions to oppose the Tremblay plaintiffs' motions to dismiss those cases or transfer them to San Francisco.
In light of settlement discussions that appear to be “ongoing” between BMI and Maggie’s Bar & Grill in Jackson, New Jersey, U.S. Magistrate Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni for New Jersey in Trenton ordered the parties to submit an additional status update regarding those settlement talks by April 10, said her text order Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-03135). BMI contacted the restaurant’s managers more than 80 times since October 2019 about the necessity of “purchasing a license for the public performance of musical compositions in the BMI repertoire,” said the June 7 complaint from BMI and five music publishers (see 2306080044). They allege six claims of willful copyright infringement against the establishment, based on its “unauthorized public performance of musical compositions.”
U.S. District Judge Sara Lioi for Eastern Ohio in Akron granted default judgment in favor of BMI and eight music publishers for the copyright infringement conduct of the Whiskey Stop Bar & Grill in Louisville, Ohio, and its owner Scott Kelly, said her signed order Tuesday (docket 5:23-cv-01889). The judge awarded the plaintiffs $22,939.55 in damages and attorneys' fees, plus interest, and permanently enjoined the defendants from further infringing the plaintiffs' musical compositions. The plaintiffs alleged six claims of willful copyright infringement, based on the defendants’ unauthorized public performance of musical compositions from the BMI repertoire (see 2309290002).
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin for Northern California in San Francisco denied plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin OpenAI from defending an Authors Guild copyright infringement action against them in the Southern District Court of New York (see 2402230065), said her Friday order (docket 3:23-cv-03223). On Feb. 8, three weeks after the SDNY defendants stated their intent not to transfer those cases to California, plaintiffs filed the motion asking the Northern California court to enjoin OpenAI from proceeding in subsequently filed actions, including those brought by Authors Guild, Sancton and The New York Times Co. Plaintiffs Paul Tremblay et al brought claims against various OpenAI entities in the Northern District of California; on Sept. 19, the Authors Guild sued OpenAI in New York district court on similar allegations. On Feb. 16, Martinez-Olguin signed an order consolidating Tremblay v. OpenAI Inc. et al, Sarah Silverman et al v. OpenAI and Michael Chabon et al v. OpenAI after parties agreed consolidation of the actions would advance the just and efficient progress of the litigation. The actions assert the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by removing copyright management information (CMI) from plaintiffs’ infringed works and redistributing those works via ChatGPT without CMI or with false CMI. Plaintiffs in In re: OpenAI ChatGPT Litigation are due to file a consolidated complaint by March 13. The judge’s Friday order said plaintiffs have “pointed to no authority allowing the court to enjoin OpenAI from defending against litigation in a second district court case." Though plaintiffs cited a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case holding that a district court with jurisdiction over all parties “may enjoin later filed actions,” the plaintiffs “fail to address how the requested injunction would work on a practical level, as the requested injunction would permit the plaintiffs in the Authors Guild Action to continue prosecuting their case while OpenAI would be unable to defend the action,” said Martinez-Olguin. She also denied as moot their motion to shorten time to hear the motion.
Plaintiffs in the two consolidated copyright infringement cases against Microsoft and OpenAI in the Southern District of New York oppose a motion by plaintiffs in the first-filed copyright infringement suit against OpenAI in the Northern District of California to intervene and to dismiss the SDNY cases (see 2402140028), said their opposition Tuesday (dockets 1:23-cv-08292 and 1:23-cv-10211). The SDNY actions “have progressed quickly and efficiently,” said 29 author plaintiffs in their opposition. The pleadings are settled, discovery is underway and summary judgment “will be fully briefed this time next year,” it said. The proposed intervenors “seek to slow that progress -- or end it -- all so that they can exercise control over any case alleging copyright infringement against OpenAI,” it said. The proposed intervenors “are a different group of copyright owners” who filed a separate action against OpenAI in the Northern District of California, it said. Those 14 plaintiffs haven’t sued Microsoft, it said. “The class they seek to represent consists of all owners of copyrights -- registered or unregistered -- whose content was used to train OpenAI’s models,” it said. Because no class has been certified in their case, the proposed intervenors, as of today, “represent only themselves,” it said.
Microsoft conditionally opposes the Feb. 12 motions of the 14 plaintiffs in the first-filed copyright infringement suit against OpenAI in the Northern District of California to intervene in and to dismiss the four actions against OpenAI and Microsoft filed subsequently in the Southern District of New York (see 2402140028), said Microsoft’s opposition Monday (docket 1:23-cv-08292). The California plaintiffs alternatively seek to stay the four SDNY cases or transfer them to California. Microsoft is a defendant in each of the SDNY cases but not in the California case, said its opposition. The California plaintiffs “remarkably do not mention” that fact in their motions, said Microsoft. Were all the plaintiffs in the California and New York actions to agree that Microsoft should be dismissed with prejudice “so that the remaining common parties can facilitate complete consolidation of those matters,” Microsoft wouldn’t object, it said. But on the assumption that the plaintiffs in the New York actions aren’t amenable to dismissing Microsoft with prejudice, it opposes the relief sought by the California plaintiffs, Microsoft said. Its opposition is “for the simple reason that it is defending the cases brought against it in the jurisdiction where those cases were filed,” it said. Microsoft is doing so “with deliberate speed and pursuant" to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ "instructions regarding the handling of copyright class actions,” it said. The California plaintiffs’ motions should be “seen as what they plainly are: jockeying for position among putative class counsel in two separate jurisdictions,” it said. Though there may come a time when one court or the other has to address that dispute, that “turf war” involves the procedural step of class certification, it said. The 2nd Circuit has instructed that class certification should follow summary judgment rather than precede it, said Microsoft. The issue may not arise at all as to Microsoft if the court agrees with its fair use defenses. The 2nd Circuit has recognized that those summary judgment defenses should come first “in order to preserve judicial resources by potentially rendering class certification proceedings unnecessary,” it said.
Author Martin Yate violated the terms of a May 2017 publishing agreement with Simon & Schuster governing the physical and electronic distribution of his book, Knock 'em Dead: The Ultimate Job Search Guide, alleged S&S’s counterclaim Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-12896) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston. Yate’s Nov. 29 complaint alleged that S&S took his career and business management titles it published and turned them into collections, without Yate’s knowledge and without paying him royalties (see 2311300010). S&S alleges that under the 2017 agreement, Yate granted S&S the exclusive right to publish, reproduce and distribute Knock 'em Dead and its derivatives in print and electronic formats, and to exercise and grant to third parties any rights to the book throughout the world, said the counterclaim. But Yate began offering the book for sale on his own website in violation of the exclusive rights granted to S&S under the agreement, it said. When S&S confronted Yate about the violation, Yate password-protected his website, it said. Yate’s conduct “constitutes a material breach” of the agreement. His breach of contract caused S&S damages for which Yates is liable, it said.
Microsoft denies "each and every allegation" in the consolidated copyright infringement class action alleging Microsoft and OpenAI committed “systematic theft on a mass scale” to feed and train their AI algorithms (see 2402050037), said its answer Friday (docket 1:23-cv-08292) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. The claims by 29 authors and the Authors Guild fail because any unauthorized copies of any registered copyrighted works “constitute fair use,” said Microsoft’s answer. The claims also fail because all the algorithms accused of infringement, and all Microsoft’s products, services or actions in connection with those algorithms, “have commercially significant noninfringing uses,” it said. The claims of infringement are also barred by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provisions, it said. The plaintiffs seek “improper damages” in violation of the Constitution and other applicable law, it said. “Any award of statutory or enhanced damages would constitute an unconstitutional penalty under the circumstances of this case, and would violate the due process and equal protection guarantees, and other substantive and procedural safeguards” afforded by the Constitution, it said. OpenAI asserted similar defenses in its separate answer Friday to the consolidated complaint.
The owner of a Bryan, Texas, bar and grill denies that his establishment publicly performs musical compositions in BMI's repertoire without a license or authorization, said his brief answer Wednesday (docket 4:24-cv-00199) to BMI’s complaint in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston. Yesterdays owner Jason Seymour asks that the relief requested in the complaint is denied and that he “recover all costs and expenses incurred in the defense of this case,” said his answer. BMI and 19 music publishers sued Seymour and his establishment Jan. 18, alleging nine claims of willful copyright infringement (see [Ref:2401190003).