This content originally appeared on HackerNoon and was authored by Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases
:::tip 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.
\
:::tip Continue Reading Here.
:::
:::info 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.
:::
\
This content originally appeared on HackerNoon and was authored by Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases | Sciencx (2024-08-13T17:32:00+00:00) Why New York Is the Chosen Venue for the CIR Lawsuit Against OpenAI. Retrieved from https://www.scien.cx/2024/08/13/why-new-york-is-the-chosen-venue-for-the-cir-lawsuit-against-openai/
Please log in to upload a file.
There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.