Eric Goldman

MAY 20, 2025

Lack of Access Courts have consistently held that posting works on the Internet, without more, doesn’t ensure that the defendant had “access” to them for purposes of copying-in-fact. But even the narrower standard invites a lot of tendentious data-mining about the defendants’ social media activities.

Defendant 106

Defendant Court Judge Lawsuit 106

Debevoise Data Blog

JANUARY 13, 2025

Despite the busy 2024 litigation year against companies offering AI platforms in 2024, significant intellectual property questions remain unanswered as the calendar turns to 2025. 2025 may bring some clarity to the legal status of AI, including through highly anticipated guidance from the U.S.

Litigation 52

Litigation Litigator Intellectual Property Defendant 52

Eric Goldman

JUNE 6, 2025

2025 WL 1009179 (S.D.N.Y. April 4, 2025), might be the most important case pending on the legality of scraping public data to create training data sets to build large language models (“LLMs”). Though Microsoft is the named defendant in the case, the real players here are the New York Times and OpenAI. Microsoft Corp.,

Defendant 62

Defendant Court Lawsuit State law 62

Eric Goldman

APRIL 8, 2025

The court does award damages for the 512(f) claims in some of the cases based on the defendants counternotifications. This produces a relatively rare plaintiff win under 512(f), where plaintiff wins usually occur only when the defendants no-show. Ashgar, 2025 WL 822685 (N.D. March 13, 2025) Viral DRM LLC v.

Defendant 52

Defendant Court Lawsuit State law 52

Eric Goldman

JANUARY 11, 2025

Kilgore might need better legal advice on copyright law…but also, see my post on the Lenz case predicting that all 512(f) defendants had to do is say “yeah, I thought about fair use” and they would get a free pass. 2025 WL 35245 (D. Longarzo * DMCAs Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law ClaimsStevens v.

Court 40

Court Judge Defendant Case predictions 40

Eric Goldman

FEBRUARY 21, 2025

The TRO language doesn’t purport to apply to YouTube, nor could it unless YouTube had also been named a defendant. Next Level Apps Technology FZCO , 2025 WL 551866 (N.D. Longarzo * DMCAs Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law ClaimsStevens v. Case Citation : Invisible Narratives LLC v.

Intellectual Property 40

Intellectual Property Court Hearing State law 40

Eric Goldman

JUNE 26, 2025

Plausible allegations that YouTube “generally benefitted from sex traffickers’ use of [its platform]” do not establish that YouTube’s “own conduct” violated section 1591 Case Citation : In re YouTube Trafficking Litigation , 2025 WL 1745759 (N.D. Reddit * More Evidence that FOSTA Benefited No One * Omegle Denied Section 230 Dismissal–AM v.

Lawsuit 93

Lawsuit Litigation Litigator Court 93