Sign up to save tools and stay up to date with the latest in AI
bg
bg
1

OpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data

Nov 21, 2024 - law.com
The New York Times Co. and OpenAI are embroiled in a legal dispute over allegations that the AI developer trained its generative AI models on copyrighted New York Times content. The case has now hit a snag over the recovery of erased data. In other legal news, several law firms have stepped in to represent various companies in pending lawsuits. These include Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr representing Symbotic Inc., Davis Polk & Wardwell representing MongoDB, Michael Best & Friedrich representing Epic Systems Corp., McCarter & English representing Sunrun Installation Services, and Greenberg Traurig representing boohoo.com UK Ltd.

The lawsuits range from shareholder derivative suits against Symbotic Inc. and MongoDB, an employment discrimination lawsuit against Epic Systems Corp., a civil rights lawsuit against Sunrun Installation Services, and a patent infringement lawsuit against boohoo.com UK Ltd. The cases are currently pending in various district courts across the United States.

Key takeaways:

  • The legal battle between The New York Times Co. and OpenAI, over the AI developer allegedly training its generative AI models on copyrighted New York Times content, has run into a dispute over erased data.
  • Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr are representing Symbotic Inc. in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit, accusing certain officers and directors of misleading investors.
  • Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for MongoDB in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit, accusing the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan.
  • Michael Best & Friedrich are representing Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit, where a project manager claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
View Full Article

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!