![Search icon](https://hackernoon.imgix.net/search-new.png?w=19&h=19)
This story draft by @legalpdf has not been reviewed by an editor, YET.
The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 16 of 18.
148. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference into this Count.
149. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft created copies of Plaintiff’s works of journalism with author information removed and included them in training sets used to train ChatGPT and Bing AI products.
150. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft created copies of Plaintiff’s works of journalism with title information removed and included them in training sets used to train ChatGPT and Bing AI products.
151. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft created copies of Plaintiff’s works of journalism with copyright notice information removed and included them in training sets used to train ChatGPT and Bing AI products.
152. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft created copies of Plaintiff’s works of journalism with terms of use information removed and included them in training sets used to train ChatGPT and Bing AI products.
153. Defendant Microsoft had reason to know that inclusion in training sets of Plaintiff’s works of journalism without author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information would induce ChatGPT and Bing AI products to provide responses to users that incorporated material from Plaintiff’s copyright-protected works or regurgitated copyright-protected works verbatim or nearly verbatim.
154. Defendant Microsoft had reason to know that inclusion in training sets of Plaintiff’s works of journalism without author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information would induce ChatGPT and Bing AI product users to distribute or publish responses that utilized Plaintiff’s copyright-protected works of journalism that such users would not have distributed or published if they were aware of the author, title, copyright notice, or terms of use information.
155. Defendant Microsoft had reason to know that inclusion in training sets of Plaintiff’s works of journalism without author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information would enable copyright infringement by ChatGPT, Bing AI, and ChatGPT and Bing AI users.
156. Defendant Microsoft had reason to know that inclusion in training sets of Plaintiff’s works of journalism without author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information would facilitate copyright infringement by ChatGPT, Bing, AI, and ChatGPT and Bing AI users.
157. Defendant Microsoft had reason to know that inclusion in training sets of Plaintiff’s works of journalism without author, title, copyright notice, and terms of use information would conceal copyright infringement by Defendants, ChatGPT, Bing AI, and ChatGPT and Bing AI users.
Continue Reading Here.
About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.