New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, OpenAI, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (Dec. 27, S.D.N.Y 2023)
The New York Times took legal action against OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging the companies of copyright infringement, specifically the unauthorized scraping of NY Times content for the creation of AI products that compete with the publication. The lawsuit targets OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Copilot, claiming that their large language models (LLMs) can generate content very similar to Times articles, undermining the publication’s relationship with readers and affecting its revenue streams. The complaint asserts the AI models pose a threat to high-quality journalism by diminishing news outlets’ ability to protect and monetize their content. Despite attempts to negotiate for fair compensation, the Times claims it has been unsuccessful in reaching a solution with both companies. OpenAI has expressed surprise and disappointment, stating ongoing constructive conversations with the New York Times. The lawsuit seeks billions of dollars in damages, a permanent injunction, and the removal of Times’ work from the companies’ datasets, aiming to halt the use of its content for training AI models. Read the complaint here.
Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc., No. 22-1006 (2d Cir. 2023)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld a prior victory for Vans, preventing the parody art collective MSCHF from selling its “Wavy Baby” shoes. The court reiterated the earlier decision, stating that MSCHF’s parody of Vans’ “Old Skool” shoes could likely cause confusion among consumers. Additionally, the court ruled that MSCHF is not entitled to First Amendment protections typically applicable to works of art in trademark cases. The three-judge panel emphasized that the First Amendment did not apply in this case because MSCHF was utilizing Vans’ trademarks to “brand its own products.” The court relied on the reasoning in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision where the Court ruled against a dog toy resembling Jack Daniel’s liquor bottles in a trademark dispute. Read the ruling here.
Feilding & Anor v. Simon C. Dickinson Ltd [2022] EWHC 3091 (Ch)
This dispute centered on the painting titled Le Bénédicité, a version of the work by eighteenth-century artist Jean-Siméon Chardin. The claimants alleged the defendant breached the contract and was negligent in the sale of the painting, asserting a failure to exercise expected care and skill by a competent art dealer. The court focused on whether the dealer, in marketing the painting as partly rather than wholly Chardin’s work, had acted unreasonably. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal both concluded that the dealer’s actions were reasonable based on the facts, leading to the denial of permission to appeal. The case did not address the correctness of the attribution but focused on the dealer’s conduct in marketing the artwork. Read the judgment here.
