The court filing Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI, accessed June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s legal PDF series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 3 of 18.
JURISDICTION AND JURISDICTION
30. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this dispute arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC § 101 et seq., including as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
31. Jurisdiction over Defendants is appropriate because they knowingly chose New York to conduct their business. Defendants maintain offices and employ employees in New York who were known to have been engaged in training and/or marketing ChatGPT and/or Copilot and thereby removing Plaintiff’s copyright management information as discussed in this action and/or selling products to New York residents resulting from such removal. Defendants consented to this Court’s personal jurisdiction at least in Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They also waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction in this District by declining to challenge it in their initial 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, which is further evidence that the violations occurred in this district.
33. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 USC § 1400(a) because the defendants or their representatives reside or may reside in this district.
34. Venue is also appropriate under 28 USC § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial portion of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. In particular, Defendants employ employees in New York who, according to the information and findings available, were involved in the activities alleged in this action.
35. Defendants consented to venue in this District at least in Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They also waived any challenge to venue in this District by waiving their right to challenge venue in their initial 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.
About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful court documents in the public domain.
This court case was accessed on June 27, 2024, from motherjones.com and is part of the public domain. The documents produced by the court are works of the federal government and, under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and can be shared without legal restriction.
