PayAuthorscom

News

AI copyright news, graded by source

Court rulings, company filings and allegations in the copyright cases against AI companies and pirate libraries, over books, articles, music, images, video and code. Checked for new filings every three hours; items are posted after review, so some appear later. Get these by e-mail · Court filings, free to read

Each item is graded by its source: a court’s ruling or order; a company’s own filing about itself; a defendant’s filing arguing its side; a plaintiffs’ filing; the claims in a complaint (allegation); or press reporting.

What the labels mean

Get these updates by e-mail

For all news.

How the e-mails work

Uses the search, kind and company you set above (not the month or sort). As we post means within about 15 minutes of a new item; digests go out in the morning, U.S. Central time, weekly on Mondays, and only when something new matches. Updates start right away, and every e-mail has a one-click unsubscribe. If you tick Catch me up, the earlier items that match also come two a day, oldest first, each morning until you are up to date; you can stop that alone from any e-mail. Someone you invite gets one e-mail asking them to accept, and nothing more unless they do; we don’t tell them who invited them. Privacy.

Plaintiffs' filingOctober 2, 2026In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation · S.D.N.Y. 1:25-md-03143

Authors suing OpenAI drop a market-dilution study from their case, while denying their lawyers funded it

In a notice of nonopposition (Dkt. 2087), the class plaintiffs in the Authors Guild and Alter cases say they will no longer rely on an academic paper, "Generative AI Floods and Dilutes the Market for Books," and do not oppose the relief sought in the defendants' motion (Dkt. 2046), which includes withdrawing a supplemental report by their expert Michael Lasinski that discussed the paper. They dispute the motion's premise that their counsel funded the paper. Sworn declarations from two of its authors, Dr. Paramveer Dhillon and Dr. Tuhin Chakrabarty, state that Susman Godfrey did not fund it and gave no edits or comments. The notice acknowledges that the firm retained Dr. Dhillon as an expert in this case and in the Mosaic litigation, and paid Dr. Chakrabarty's institution for work in Mosaic. The plaintiffs say the paper only duplicates other market-harm evidence already in the record, and that they are withdrawing it in light of the defendants' objection to an expert relying on a report served after the rebuttal deadline. The court has not ruled.

Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Nonopposition, Dkt. 2087 (PDF) ↗Declaration of Dr. Paramveer Dhillon, Dkt. 2087-1 (PDF) ↗Declaration of Dr. Tuhin Chakrabarty, Dkt. 2087-2 (PDF) ↗Defendants' motion, Dkt. 2046 (PDF) ↗

Loading the rest of the news…

What the labels mean

Every item says what kind of source it rests on. A court ruling or order is the court's own statement. A company filing is what a defendant says about itself. A government filing is a statement by a government agency that is not a party to the case, such as a statement of interest; it is the government's position, not a ruling. An allegation is what a complaint or motion claims and has not been decided. Reported means press reporting we have not confirmed from the primary document. Summaries are our own; follow the links for the source.

This page is general information, not legal advice. An allegation is not a finding. Whether any of this matters for a particular work or claim is a question for a lawyer.