PayAuthorscom

News

AI copyright news, graded by source

Court rulings, company filings and allegations about AI companies and pirated book collections. Checked for new filings about every hour; 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. 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.

Company filingOctober 5, 2026Nazemian v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 4:24-cv-01454 · N.D. Cal.

NVIDIA says its lawyers disclosed a further download made after the July 2024 discovery cutoff, and argues it does not justify reopening discovery

In a partly redacted opposition (Dkt. 437), NVIDIA asks the court to reject the authors' request to add new exhibits to their challenge of a magistrate judge's order enforcing the agreed July 1, 2024 discovery cutoff. NVIDIA states that a September 30, 2026 email from its counsel disclosed "a post-cutoff download from a data source that is already part of the case," and that the email is almost identical to an earlier notice about the same source. The public version does not name the source. NVIDIA argues the magistrate judge already knew downloading might have continued past the cutoff and enforced it anyway; that the authors' other exhibits concern downloads made between February and June 30, 2024 and do not show that the plaintiffs' own books were downloaded later; and that the added download would not increase statutory damages, because the Copyright Act allows one award per work however many times it was copied. NVIDIA also asks the court to strike the authors' alternative request to bar it from relying on fair-use evidence from after July 1, 2024. NVIDIA separately moved to seal parts of four sentences (Dkt. 436). The court has not ruled.

NVIDIA's opposition, Dkt. 437 (CourtListener docket entry) ↗NVIDIA's motion to seal, Dkt. 436 (CourtListener docket entry) ↗

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.