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 3 of 18. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 30. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., including as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 31. Jurisdiction over Defendants is proper because they have purposefully availed themselves of New York to conduct their business. Defendants maintain offices and employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in training and/or marketing of ChatGPT and/or Copilot, and thus in the removal of Plaintiff’s copyright management information as discussed in this Complaint and/or the sale of products to New York residents resulting from that removal. Defendants consented to personal jurisdiction in this Court in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. 32. CIR also has one of its main offices in this District in New York, NY, further demonstrating that the injuries occurred in this District. 33. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because Defendants or their agents reside or may be found in this District. 34. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. Specifically, Defendants employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in the activities alleged in this Complaint. 35. Defendants consented to venue in this District in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to venue in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. 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. 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 3 of 18. 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 3 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here JURISDICTION AND VENUE 30. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., including as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 31. Jurisdiction over Defendants is proper because they have purposefully availed themselves of New York to conduct their business. Defendants maintain offices and employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in training and/or marketing of ChatGPT and/or Copilot, and thus in the removal of Plaintiff’s copyright management information as discussed in this Complaint and/or the sale of products to New York residents resulting from that removal. Defendants consented to personal jurisdiction in this Court in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. 32. CIR also has one of its main offices in this District in New York, NY, further demonstrating that the injuries occurred in this District. 33. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because Defendants or their agents reside or may be found in this District. 34. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. Specifically, Defendants employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in the activities alleged in this Complaint. 35. Defendants consented to venue in this District in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to venue in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . 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. 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. motherjones.com

Why New York Is the Chosen Venue for the CIR Lawsuit Against OpenAI

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

How to Copyright Your AI Creations

Center for Investigative Reporting Sues OpenAI in New York Federal Court

The Center for Investigative Reporting Claims OpenAI Exploited Its Work Without Permission

Is ChatGPT a Liar? Oldest Non-profit Newsroom Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against OpenAI

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

How to Copyright Your AI Creations

Center for Investigative Reporting Sues OpenAI in New York Federal Court

The Center for Investigative Reporting Claims OpenAI Exploited Its Work Without Permission

Is ChatGPT a Liar? Oldest Non-profit Newsroom Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against OpenAI

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps