AI Topics for Lawyers to Watch in 2025, Part Three: Copyright Infringement Cases

In this three-part series, I’m highlighting AI topics for lawyers to watch this year. Part one explored AI agents and offered considerations for lawyers who are interested in utilizing AI agents. Part two examined what’s happening with benchmarking of AI tools for lawyers, why it matters, and what lawyers should do in the absence of benchmarking information about AI tools they consider using in their practices. 

Issue 13 

Today I’m going to share five things that would be helpful for you to know about the AI-related copyright infringement cases going into 2025. 

In case you are wondering whether you really need to devote the next few minutes to reading this newsletter, let me start with this question: 

1. I don’t practice copyright law, why do I need to keep tabs on the copyright infringement cases?  

You may have a personal interest in the outcome of future court decisions on whether it is fair use for AI companies to train their models on copyrighted materials if: 

• You use or are considering using a generative AI model that is made by an AI company that has been sued for copyright infringement; 
• You are an attorney who is also a published author, or creates YouTube videos;  
• You have clients who hold copyrights, as the types of AI-related copyright infringement cases being filed have broadened past AI model defendants, and include, for example, a lawsuit between a recruitment company and one of its competitors;[i] or  
• You have clients who may potentially have liability exposure from their use of copyrighted works for AI-related purposes.   

Additionally, even if you cannot identify a personal interest in the outcome of the copyright lawsuits, it would behoove you to stay informed because the fair use question is arguably the biggest unanswered legal question in relation to the AI models so far. The outcome of these cases may have immense repercussions for the livelihoods of the plaintiffs, as well as for the viability of continued AI model development. The fair use decisions will fall under the umbrella of foundational AI-related legal knowledge that should become part of your AI competency as an attorney.  

I will continue to write about developments in the copyright infringement cases in this newsletter and on LinkedIn. Additionally, I’ve created a special resource to help you understand the current landscape of the AI-related copyright infringement lawsuits - you can find out more about it under section 3 below. 

2. How many AI-related copyright lawsuits have been filed? 

You’ve likely heard about some of the most high-profile AI-related copyright infringement lawsuits, such as The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation et al. and Authors Guild et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al.[ii] However, unless you have been tracking the copyright cases, there are likely numerous cases that you have not heard about yet. To date, at least 41 AI-related copyright infringement cases have been filed. These cases have been filed in six United States District Courts, with the majority of the cases concentrated in the Northern District of California and the Southern District of New York.  

Summaries of all 41 copyright infringement cases that I have identified to date (as well as many other AI-related court cases) are available to the attorneys who have A Lawyer’s Practical Guide to AI and are periodically updated. 

3. Where are the copyright infringement cases in the litigation process?  

The majority of the copyright infringement cases were filed in 2023 or 2024, and are currently in the discovery phase. The most recently filed case that I am tracking was filed in December 2024. Two of the 41 cases have been dismissed with prejudice.[iii]  

Tracking the AI-related copyright infringement cases has been a relatively wild ride by civil procedure standards. Discovery disputes aside, there have been transfers to new jurisdictions, attempts to intervene, relation of cases, and consolidation of cases. Notably, over half of the 41 cases have been consolidated with one or more of the other tracked cases to date, resulting in 20 cases that are proceeding individually, and eight groupings of consolidated cases. 

For example, in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation et al., defendant OpenAI moved for consolidation of The New York Times Company case with Daily News, LP et al. v. Microsoft Corporation et al., arguing in part that consolidation was appropriate because the two lawsuits were functionally identical.[iv] The Court granted OpenAI’s motion for consolidation,[v] and subsequently granted OpenAI’s and Microsoft’s joint motion for consolidation of The New York Times and Daily News cases with The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al.[vi] These cases now comprise one of the eight consolidated case groups referenced above.  

Tracking the copyright infringement cases, especially in light of the evolving case consolidations, started to feel eerily close to a convoluted crime investigation board with pins and bits of string running in every direction, so I created some visual order and clarity with charts that organize the cases by jurisdiction and whether they are proceeding individually or as part of a consolidated group. These charts, which are titled “AI-Related Copyright Infringement Cases by Jurisdiction” have been incredibly helpful to me in grasping the big picture of the copyright infringement cases, and I think they can help you, too. 

I have made these charts available exclusively to my newsletter subscribers. If you would like free access to the charts, I invite you to subscribe to my newsletter at this link, and after confirming your subscription, the charts will be delivered to your inbox.  

4. Have there been notable rulings in any of the cases yet?  

A 2024 decision in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH et al. v. Ross Intelligence Inc.[vii] was widely anticipated as trial was originally set for August 26, 2024. However, on August 22, 2024, the Hon. Stephanos Bibas continued the trial without setting a future trial date and invited the parties to file motions for summary judgment on copyrightability, validity, infringement, and fair use.[viii] Pursuant to the case docket, on November 4, 2024, the Hon. Stephanos Bibas orally ordered that the parties reserve the week of May 12, 2025 for trial.  

Most of the notable rulings to date have been in relation to claims for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). The majority of the DMCA claims have been dismissed by a court or voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs.[ix]  

The plaintiffs in one case have appealed the dismissal of their DMCA claim. In J. Doe 1 et al. v. Github, Inc. et al.[x], the Hon. Jon S. Tigar dismissed plaintiffs’ DMCA Section 1202(b) claim with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs failed to meet the identicality requirement.[xi] In a prior order in this matter, the Court further articulated that a Section 1202(b) claim would require that copyright management information is removed or altered in relation to output that is an identical copy of a copyrighted work, as opposed to a nearly identical copy or more significantly modified copy.[xii] The Hon. Jon S. Tigar subsequently granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify order for interlocutory appeal and motion to stay pending appeal.[xiii] On December 19, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs’ petition for permission to appeal.[xiv]  

To date, one challenged DMCA claim has survived a motion to dismiss. In The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al.,[xv] the Hon. Jed Rakoff allowed plaintiff’s claim under U.S.C. § 1202(b)(1) to proceed.[xvi] The order further indicated that an opinion explaining the ruling would issue in due course.[xvii]  

On January 14, 2024, oral argument was heard on OpenAI’s and Microsoft’s motions to dismiss for The New York Times consolidated case group.[xviii] At the time this issue of the newsletter was finalized for publication, the Court had not yet issued its ruling.

5. What events should I watch for in 2025?  

While we are highly unlikely to obtain any final answers in these AI-related copyright infringement cases this year, there are bound to be informative developments. A few key dates that are currently on court dockets for 2025 include:  

• Kadrey et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.[xix] – May 1, 2025, hearing on motions for summary judgment.[xx]  
• Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH et al. v. Ross Intelligence Inc. – week of May 12, 2025, trial. 
• Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. v. Anthropic PBC[xxi] - Nov. 12, 2025, hearing on dispositive and/or Daubert motions. 
• Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC[xxii] - Dec. 1, 2025, trial.[xxiii] 

It’s possible that other hearings on motions for summary judgment and trial dates will occur this year. I anticipate that the AI-Related Copyright Infringement Cases by Jurisdiction charts should prove helpful in understanding the context of developments as they occur in various jurisdictions. As new summary judgment and trial dates are set, I will add them to the case summaries in Chapter 4 of A Lawyer’s Practical Guide to AI. 

Thanks for being here. 

Jennifer Ballard
Good Journey Consulting

P.S. As a reminder, if you would like to receive the AI-Related Copyright Infringement Cases by Jurisdiction charts I created to better understand the current landscape of the copyright infringement cases, you can get them delivered directly to your inbox for free by signing up for my weekly newsletter here.

[i] Jobiak, LLC v. Botmakers LLC, No. 2:23-cv-08604 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 12, 2023). On October 31, 2024, the Hon. Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong granted defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis of failing to establish jurisdiction, and granted plaintiff leave to amend and conduct limited discovery for purposes of establishing jurisdiction. Order Granting Motion to Dismiss at 5, 15, Jobiak. At the time of publication of this article, pursuant to the docket, an amended complaint has not been filed.  

[ii] The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation et al., No. 1:23-cv-11195 (S.D.N.Y. filed December 27, 2023) and Authors Guild et al. v. OpenAI Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-08292 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 19, 2023). 

[iii] Alan Giana v. Shein Distribution Corp. et al., No. 1:24-cv-02599 (S.D.N.Y. 2024), and Jobiak, LLC v. Aspen Technology Labs Inc., No. 2:23-cv-08728 (C.D. Cal. 2023). 

[iv] Memorandum of Law in Support of OpenAI’s Motion to Consolidate at 1, The New York Times Company, supra note ii. OpenAI’s motion to consolidate was later joined by Microsoft. Microsoft’s Joinder Brief in Support of OpenAI Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate at 1, The New York Times Company, supra note ii. 

[v] Order dated Sept. 13, 2024 at 4, The New York Times Company, supra note ii. 

[vi] The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-04872 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jun. 27, 2024), Order dated October 31, 2024 at 2, The New York Times Company, supra note ii.] 

[vii] Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH et al. v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613 (D. Del. filed May 6, 2020). 

[viii] Oral Order via docket entry 663, Thomson Reuters, supra note vii. 

[ix] See e.g., J. Doe 1 et al. v. Github, Inc. et al., Nos. 4:22-cv-06823 and 4:22-cv-07074 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 3, 2022), and Leovy et al. v. Alphabet Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-03440 (N.D. Cal. filed Jul. 11, 2023) (now consolidated with another case under In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, No. 3:23-cv-03440 (N.D. Cal. filed Jul. 11, 2023, consolidated Nov. 7, 2024). 

[x] Github, supra note ix. 

[xi] Order Granting in Part Denying in Part Motions to Dismiss dated Jun. 24, 2024, at 4, 6, Github, supra note ix. 

[xii] Order Granting in Part Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss dated Jan. 22, 2024, at 14-15, Github, supra note ix. 

[xiii] Order Granting in Part Denying in Part Motions to Dismiss dated Jun. 24, 2024, at 4-5, Github, supra note ix. 

[xiv] Order dated December 19, 2024, at 1, Github, supra note ix. 

[xv] The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., No. 1:24-cv-01515 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 28, 2024). 

[xvi] Order dated Nov. 21, 2024 at 1-2, The Intercept Media, supra note xv. 

[xvii] Id. at 2. 

[xviii] Order dated Dec. 26, 2024 at 1, The New York Times Company, supra note ii. 

[xix] Kadrey et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal. filed Jul. 7, 2023). 

[xx] Stipulation and Order re Schedule dated Oct. 24, 2024, at 2, Kadrey, supra note xix. 

[xxi] Concord Music Group, Inc. et al. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:24-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal. opened Jun. 26, 2024). 

[xxii] Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 19, 2024). 

[xxiii] Case Management Order at 4, Bartz, supra note xxii.