{"cached_at":"2026-11-03T11:47:11.636733+00:00","cl_docket_id":"74652896","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","id":74652896,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nysd/","court_id":"nysd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/3095/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-08-14T13:23:08.391995-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T16:37:39.951852-08:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Sidney H. Stein","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2026-08-14","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-11-02","case_name_short":"Sullivan","case_name":"Sullivan v. OpenAI Foundation","case_name_full":"","slug":"sullivan-v-openai-foundation","docket_number":"1:26-cv-06966","docket_number_core":"2606966","docket_number_raw":"1:26-cv-06966","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"SHS","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"670598","cause":"17:501 Copyright Infringement","nature_of_suit":"820 Copyright","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2026-08-14T13:23:08.381698-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23633293/","id":23633293,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Interested Party","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-09-02T08:01:21.370849-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-02T08:01:21.370860-07:00","name":"United States of America","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23537277/","id":23537277,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"formerly known as\nOpenAI Inc.","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-18T10:52:45.463542-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-18T10:52:45.463552-07:00","name":"OpenAI Foundation","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529212/","id":23529212,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:14.673943-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:14.673965-07:00","name":"Microsoft Corporation","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529211/","id":23529211,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.481600-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.481616-07:00","name":"OpenAI Startup Fund Management LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529210/","id":23529210,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.458313-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.458328-07:00","name":"OpenAI Startup Fund GP I LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529209/","id":23529209,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.437716-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.437732-07:00","name":"OpenAI Startup Fund I LP","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529208/","id":23529208,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.385741-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.385758-07:00","name":"OAI Corporation","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529207/","id":23529207,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.345377-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.345393-07:00","name":"OpenAI Global, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529206/","id":23529206,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.309084-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.309100-07:00","name":"OpenAI OpCo, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529205/","id":23529205,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.229958-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.229973-07:00","name":"OpenAI GP, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529204/","id":23529204,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.111377-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:11.111391-07:00","name":"OpenAI Group PBC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529202/","id":23529202,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954645/","attorney_id":15954645,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954646/","attorney_id":15954646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954647/","attorney_id":15954647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15981659/","attorney_id":15981659,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954648/","attorney_id":15954648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:10.758156-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:10.758180-07:00","name":"Dana Loewy","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529201/","id":23529201,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954645/","attorney_id":15954645,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954646/","attorney_id":15954646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954647/","attorney_id":15954647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15981659/","attorney_id":15981659,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954648/","attorney_id":15954648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:10.570336-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:10.570355-07:00","name":"Lion Den, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529200/","id":23529200,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954645/","attorney_id":15954645,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954646/","attorney_id":15954646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954647/","attorney_id":15954647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15981659/","attorney_id":15981659,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954648/","attorney_id":15954648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:10.402447-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:10.402463-07:00","name":"Kevin T. Patton","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529199/","id":23529199,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954645/","attorney_id":15954645,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954646/","attorney_id":15954646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954647/","attorney_id":15954647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15981659/","attorney_id":15981659,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954648/","attorney_id":15954648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:10.235687-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:10.235703-07:00","name":"Alan J. Marcus","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529198/","id":23529198,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954645/","attorney_id":15954645,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954646/","attorney_id":15954646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954647/","attorney_id":15954647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15981659/","attorney_id":15981659,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954648/","attorney_id":15954648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:10.027134-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:10.027148-07:00","name":"Zvi Bodie","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529197/","id":23529197,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954645/","attorney_id":15954645,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954646/","attorney_id":15954646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954647/","attorney_id":15954647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15981659/","attorney_id":15981659,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954648/","attorney_id":15954648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:09.819086-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:09.819101-07:00","name":"Kenneth S. Saladin","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23529196/","id":23529196,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954645/","attorney_id":15954645,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954646/","attorney_id":15954646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954647/","attorney_id":15954647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15981659/","attorney_id":15981659,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/15954648/","attorney_id":15954648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","docket_id":74652896,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:17:09.239046-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:17:09.239062-07:00","name":"Michael Sullivan","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484106394/","id":484106394,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499938344/","id":499938344,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/66/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-11-02T13:11:04.746627-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T13:11:04.754585-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"66","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040661043","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-02T13:11:04.724220-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T13:11:04.730238-08:00","date_filed":"2026-11-02","time_filed":"12:12:16","entry_number":66,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-11-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":324,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484105477/","id":484105477,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499937419/","id":499937419,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/67/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-11-02T13:09:21.141996-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T13:09:21.149575-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"67","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040663533","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"File Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-02T13:09:21.121329-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T13:09:21.127741-08:00","date_filed":"2026-11-02","time_filed":"15:13:01","entry_number":67,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-11-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":326,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484105395/","id":484105395,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499937337/","id":499937337,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/68/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-11-02T13:09:13.202804-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T13:09:13.210489-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"68","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040663592","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499987656/","id":499987656,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/68/1/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-11-02T16:35:28.369049-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T16:37:39.904753-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":10,"file_size":187367,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"68","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127040663593","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499987657/","id":499987657,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/68/2/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-11-02T16:35:28.403308-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T16:37:39.930709-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":91140,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"68","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127040663594","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-02T13:09:13.183293-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T13:09:13.188914-08:00","date_filed":"2026-11-02","time_filed":"15:16:27","entry_number":68,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-11-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":328,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484105259/","id":484105259,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499937201/","id":499937201,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/69/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-11-02T13:08:52.944155-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T13:08:52.951478-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"69","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040663661","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Remark","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-02T13:08:52.922126-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T13:08:52.928600-08:00","date_filed":"2026-11-02","time_filed":"15:21:04","entry_number":69,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-11-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":330,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483989508/","id":483989508,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499820391/","id":499820391,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-11-02T09:10:17.395476-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T09:10:17.395503-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice Regarding Pro Hac Vice Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-02T09:10:17.379286-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T09:10:17.379307-08:00","date_filed":"2026-11-02","time_filed":"11:32:10","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-11-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483793078/","id":483793078,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499618027/","id":499618027,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/65/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T22:08:01.674913-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T22:08:01.688723-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"65","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040657424","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"File Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499659717/","id":499659717,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/65/1/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-31T13:33:42.194192-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:42:48.240421-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":20,"file_size":326520,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"65","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127040657425","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A - Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499659718/","id":499659718,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/65/2/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-31T13:33:42.217306-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:42:48.249467-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":124358,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"65","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127040657426","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T22:08:01.599235-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T22:08:01.613056-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"23:32:27","entry_number":65,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":313,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483778377/","id":483778377,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499602391/","id":499602391,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/64/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T20:17:33.713992-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T20:17:33.726924-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"64","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656887","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"File Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499602913/","id":499602913,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/64/1/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T20:27:33.411244-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:41:16.888685-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":22,"file_size":186260,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"64","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656888","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit [Proposed] Brief of AI Startups as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499602914/","id":499602914,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/64/2/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T20:27:33.434162-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:41:16.901174-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":67167,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"64","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656889","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief of AI","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T20:17:33.684248-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T20:17:33.693531-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"21:41:40","entry_number":64,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":311,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483773633/","id":483773633,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499597087/","id":499597087,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/58/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T18:08:32.919437-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:32:25.995417-08:00","sha1":"cfa816f9d0e5f2971476d4181532123779e365b2","page_count":2,"file_size":173632,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598.58.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW Document 2437 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n IN RE: OPENAI, INC.,\n COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case No. 1:25-md-3143 (SHS) (OTW)\n LITIGATION\n\n\n This Document Relates To: Hon. Sidney H. Stein\n\n 1:25-cv-04315-SHS-OTW\n 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW\n 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW\n\n NOTICE OF MOTION OF KHOSLA VENTURES, LLC FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN\nAMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT OPENAI, INC.\u2019S MOTIONS\n FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n\n PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law\n\nand pursuant to the Court\u2019s August 7, 2026 Order (ECF No. 1663), as modified by the Court\u2019s\n\nSeptember 24, 2026 Order (ECF No. 2049), Khosla Ventures, LLC, by and through its undersigned\n\ncounsel, respectfully moves this Court for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of\n\nDefendant OpenAI, Inc.\u2019s Motions for Summary Judgment.\n\f Case 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW Document 2437 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\nDATED: October 30, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Brendan P. Cullen\n Brendan P. Cullen*\n cullenb@sullcrom.com\n Laura K. Oswell*\n oswelll@sullcrom.com\n SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP\n 550 Hamilton Avenue\n Palo Alto, California 94301\n Telephone: (650) 461-5600\n Facsimile: (650) 461-5700\n\n Counsel for amicus curiae Khosla\n Ventures, LLC\n\n * Applications for pro hac vice\n admission pending\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-11-02T06:32:25.991162-08:00","document_number":"58","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656192","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"File Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T18:08:32.895802-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:08:32.903398-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"19:33:13","entry_number":58,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":292,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483773613/","id":483773613,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499597067/","id":499597067,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/59/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T18:08:29.280179-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:08:29.290556-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"59","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656195","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"File Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499597402/","id":499597402,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/59/1/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T18:15:30.297347-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:33:27.914844-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":51,"file_size":771365,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"59","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656196","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Proposed Brief of Professor Joseph Stiglitz As Amicus Curiae In Support","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499597403/","id":499597403,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/59/2/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T18:15:30.324050-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:33:27.927330-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":88465,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"59","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656197","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Brief of Professor Joseph S","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T18:08:29.257414-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:08:29.264080-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"19:34:23","entry_number":59,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":294,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483773576/","id":483773576,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499597030/","id":499597030,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/60/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T18:08:20.655221-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:08:20.665505-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"60","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656244","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T18:08:20.629845-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:08:20.635762-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"19:47:17","entry_number":60,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":298,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483773545/","id":483773545,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499596999/","id":499596999,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/61/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T18:08:12.876063-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:08:12.887295-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"61","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656279","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T18:08:12.848583-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:08:12.856093-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"19:53:32","entry_number":61,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":302,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483773495/","id":483773495,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499596949/","id":499596949,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/62/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T18:08:00.974347-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T20:35:23.892372-07:00","sha1":"5d0112f6d8d56775e5ec78cbb5a59ff9d236f2ec","page_count":3,"file_size":328854,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598.62.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:26-cv-08892-SHS Document 83 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\nOctober 30, 2026\n\nBy Electronic Filing\n\nThe Honorable Sidney H. Stein\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, New York, 10007-1312\n\nRe:\u200b Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Gregory Leppert in Support of Defendants\u200b\n In Re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 25-md-3143 (SHS) (OTW),\n This Document Relates to: All Cases\n\nDear Judge Stein:\n\nUnder the Court\u2019s Orders of August 7, 2026 (Dkt. No. 1663) and September 24, 2026 (Dkt. No. 2049) and\nLocal Rules 5.2(b) and 7.1(e), proposed amicus Gregory Leppert respectfully moves the Court for an\norder granting leave to file the attached brief in support of Defendants.\n\n1. Interest of Amicus Curiae\n\nGregory Leppert is the Executive Director of the Institutional Data Initiative (IDI) at the Harvard Law\nSchool Library, a research initiative that works with libraries, universities, and governments to refine and\npublish their collections as datasets for computational uses. His work at IDI is animated by a desire to\naffirm the role of public-interest institutions as stewards of knowledge in a future shaped by AI. IDI is\nsupported by a consortium of funders, including Jane Street, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI.\n\nMr. Leppert is also the Chief Technologist of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at\nHarvard University, where he enables research on transformative technologies as they intersect with\nsociety. He was previously the Director of Product and Research at the Harvard Law School Library\u2019s\nLibrary Innovation Lab (LIL), where he led strategy and implementation of tools and research for\nimproving library technologies.\n\nThrough his work on LIL\u2019s Caselaw Access Project, Mr. Leppert helped the Harvard Law School Library\nas it digitized and made accessible 360 years of U.S. case law, creating a first-of-its kind dataset that has\ndemocratized access to law. Through LIL\u2019s Perma.cc platform, Mr. Leppert helped a consortium of\nlibraries archive the web so that citations to web content are properly preserved, even if the original\nwebpages change or disappear.\n\nIn leading IDI, Mr. Leppert has worked with the Boston Public Library to build AI systems that parse and\nmake accessible 1.47 million pages from the library\u2019s newspaper collections; with the University of\nMichigan Library to use general-purpose AI reasoning models to extract key decision points from nearly\n\f Case 1:26-cv-08892-SHS Document 83 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 3\n\nThe Honorable Sidney H. Stein\u200b\nOctober 30, 2026\nPage 2\n\n200 years of the university\u2019s board proceedings; and with Harvard Library and Google to release nearly\none million books scanned from Harvard Library\u2019s collections.\n\nAs a lifelong artist and musician who once made his living as a graphic designer and full-time touring\nmusician, Mr. Leppert has also personally relied on the markets and creative freedoms that copyright and\nfair use enable. Together, these experiences give him a direct interest in how copyright law can continue\nto support creative markets while enabling libraries and other public-interest institutions to use new\ntechnologies to preserve and expand access to knowledge. Mr. Leppert submits this brief solely in his\nindividual capacity, and provides his institutional affiliations for identification only. No party or its\ncounsel authored this brief in whole or in part. No party or its counsel, and no person other than Mr.\nLeppert and his counsel, contributed money to fund or intended to fund the preparation or submission of\nthis amicus curiae brief.\n\nThe parties\u2019 motions for summary judgment involve application of the fair use factors to training of\ngeneral purpose AI models. In applying these factors, the Court should take into account the public\nbenefits the copying will likely produce. Through his work with libraries and library technology, Mr.\nLeppert offers insight and a unique perspective on how libraries are using and will use general purpose AI\nmodels to keep pace with growing needs and avoid obsolescence. Mr. Leppert\u2019s knowledge and\nperspective regarding these public benefits falls outside the scope of interests addressed by any party to\nthis case.\n\n2.\u200b Argument\n\n\u201cDistrict courts have broad discretion to permit or deny the appearance of amici curiae in a given case.\u201d\nUnited States v. Ahmed, 788 F.Supp. 196, 198 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). \u201cThe primary role of the amicus is to\nassist the Court in reaching the right decision in a case affected with the interest of the general public.\u201d\nRussell v. Bd. of Plumbing Exam\u2019rs, 74 F. Supp. 2d 349, 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff\u2019d on other grounds, No.\n99-9532, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5814 (2d Cir. Jan. 5, 2001). Courts should generally allow an amicus\nbrief \u201cwhen the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that\nthe lawyers for the parties are able to provide.\u201d C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Cnty. of Rockland, No. 08-cv-6459,\n2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38658, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2014) (quoting Ryan v. Commodity Futures\nTrading Comm\u2019n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997)). This Court has recognized the interest of\npotential amicus curiae in relation to the pending motions for summary judgment in this litigation. Dkt.\nNo. 1663.\n\nMr. Leppert respectfully submits that the proposed brief offers unique information and perspective to aid\nthis Court in its consideration of the issues raised by the parties\u2019 respective motions. As Executive\nDirector of the Institutional Data Initiative, Mr. Leppert works closely with public and university libraries\nto support their missions and purpose as stewards of information for the purpose of promoting the public\ngood and furthering the representation of diverse ideas and ways of seeing the world. As a function of his\nwork, Mr. Leppert is uniquely familiar with the challenges faced by libraries in keeping pace with the\nbacklog of library materials to be processed and made accessible for future generations, and the manner in\nwhich general purpose AI models support libraries\u2019 efforts. These public benefits conferred by general\npurpose AI models are not addressed in the parties\u2019 briefing or in the record in this litigation.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-08892-SHS Document 83 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 3\n\nThe Honorable Sidney H. Stein\u200b\nOctober 30, 2026\nPage 3\n\nThe proposed brief is timely filed, and complies with the Court\u2019s orders concerning the filing of amicus\nbriefs; it contains 4,491 words. Dkt. Nos. 1663, 2049. Mr. Leppert respectfully requests that the Court\ngrant him leave to file the amicus brief attached as Exhibit 1.\n\nVery Truly Yours,\n\n\n____________________________________\nMatthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 4016275)\nErika H. Warren (pro hac vice pending)\nWARREN LLP\n2261 Market Street, No. 606\nSan Francisco, California, 94114\n+1 (415) 895-2940\n+1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n25-3143@cases.warrenllp.com\n\nAttorneys for [Proposed] Amicus Curiae\nGregory Leppert\n\ncc:\u200b All counsel of record via ECF\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-10-30T20:35:23.888008-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656383","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"File Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499603064/","id":499603064,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/62/1/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T20:28:49.520819-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:35:14.773418-08:00","sha1":"ecf2e6c1d8cbc6b36ace4d31fdc02d71b3aa8a18","page_count":20,"file_size":3645080,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598.62.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 20\n\n\n\n\n \u202dExhibit 1\u202c\n\f Case 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 20\n\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nIN RE: OPENAI, INC.\nCOPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case No.25-md-3143 (SHS) (OTW)\nLITIGATION\n\nThis Document Relates to:\nAll Cases\n\n\n\n [PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE\n GREGORY LEPPERT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS\n\n\n\n\u200b\n\n\n\n\u200b\n\n\n\n\n\u200b Matthew S. Warren \u200b\n\u200b Erika H. Warren\n\u200b \u200b WARREN LLP\n\u200b \u200b 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n\u200b \u200b San Francisco, California, 94114\n\u200b \u200b +1 (415) 895-2940\n\u200b \u200b +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n\u200b \u200b 25-3143@cases.warrenllp.com\n\n\u200b \u200b Attorneys for [Proposed] Amicus Curiae \u200b\n\u200b \u200b Gregory Leppert\n\f Case 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 20\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200bii\n\nSTATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b1\n\nINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b2\n\nARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b3\n\nI. \u200b Libraries Are Essential to American Expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b3\n\nII.\u200b Libraries Face a Critical Time in American History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b5\n\nIII.\u200b Libraries Rely on Robust General-Purpose Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b7\n\n A.\u200b Libraries Struggle to Meet Their Goals of Preservation and Access . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b7\n\n B.\u200b AI Supports Preservation and Access At Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b10\n\nIV.\u200b Still, Consider the Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \u200b14\n\nCONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b15\n\n\n\n\n \u2013i\u2013\n\f Case 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 20\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\u200b \u200b Cases\u200b Page\n\nAuthors Guild v. Google, Inc.,\n 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b 3, 14\n\nGoogle LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.,\n 593 U.S. 1 (2021) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b3, 14\n\nFeist Publ\u2019ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,\n 499 U.S. 340 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b3\n\n Statutes and Rules\n\nU.S. Const. art. I, \u00a7 8, cl. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\u200b3\n\n\n\n\n \u2013 ii \u2013\n\f Case 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 20\n\n\n\n\n STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE\n\n Gregory Leppert is the Executive Director of the Institutional Data Initiative (IDI) at the\n\nHarvard Law School Library, a research initiative that works with libraries, universities, and\n\ngovernments to refine and publish their collections as datasets for computational uses. His work\n\nat IDI is animated by a desire to affirm the role of public-interest institutions as stewards of\n\nknowledge in a future shaped by AI. IDI is supported by a consortium of funders, including Jane\n\nStreet, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI.\n\n Mr. Leppert is also the Chief Technologist of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and\n\nSociety at Harvard University, where he enables research on transformative technologies as they\n\nintersect with society. He was previously the Director of Product and Research at the Harvard\n\nLaw School Library\u2019s Library Innovation Lab (LIL), where he led strategy and implementation\n\nof tools and research for improving library technologies.\n\n Through his work on LIL\u2019s Caselaw Access Project, Mr. Leppert helped the Harvard Law\n\nSchool Library as it digitized and made accessible 360 years of U.S. case law, creating a\n\nfirst-of-its kind dataset that has democratized access to law. Through LIL\u2019s Perma.cc platform,\n\nMr. Leppert helped a consortium of libraries archive the web so that citations to web\n\ncontent\u2014especially those in legal filings such as this one\u2014are properly preserved, even if the\n\noriginal webpages change or disappear.\n\n In leading IDI, Mr. Leppert has worked with the Boston Public Library to build AI\n\nsystems that parse and make accessible 1.47 million pages from the library\u2019s newspaper\n\ncollections; with the University of Michigan Library to use general-purpose AI reasoning models\n\nto extract key decision points from nearly 200 years of the university\u2019s board proceedings; and\n\n\n\n\n \u20131\u2013\n\f Case 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 20\n\n\n\n\nwith Harvard Library and Google to release nearly one million books scanned from Harvard\n\nLibrary\u2019s collections.\n\n As a lifelong artist and musician who once made his living as a graphic designer and\n\nfull-time touring musician, Mr. Leppert has also personally relied on the markets and creative\n\nfreedoms that copyright and fair use enable. Together, these experiences give him a direct\n\ninterest in how copyright law can continue to support creative markets while enabling libraries\n\nand other public-interest institutions to use new technologies to preserve and expand access to\n\nknowledge.\n\n Mr. Leppert submits this brief solely in his individual capacity, and provides his\n\ninstitutional affiliations for identification only. No party or its counsel authored this brief in\n\nwhole or in part. No party or its counsel, and no person other than Mr. Leppert and his counsel,\n\ncontributed money to fund or intended to fund the preparation or submission of this amicus\n\ncuriae brief.\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n This case involves training of general-purpose AI models on a vast corpus of data,\n\nincluding copyrighted works. Plaintiffs do not argue that the sole use of these models is\n\ninfringement of their intellectual property. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that, because the models can\n\nbe used to prepare other works and because those works could be infringing or similar to\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 works, or otherwise compete with them, the general-purpose models comprise\n\n\u201cmachine[s] capable of flooding the market with competing works.\u201d1 Mr. Leppert takes no\n\nposition on whether any particular AI output would infringe any copyrighted work, or would be\n\nfair use. Instead, Mr. Leppert submits that general-purpose models like those at issue in this\n\n 1\n Dkt. No. 1982 at 27-28 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Dkt. No. 2108 at 65 (\u201cAI-generated outputs\nprovide substitutive answers.\u201d)\n\n \u20132\u2013\n\f Case 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 20\n\n\n\n\naction\u2014due in large part to their broad training data\u2014are capable of many uses that serve\n\nimportant public benefits which promote the fundamental goals of copyright.\n\n Libraries, tasked as stewards of human knowledge and understanding, benefit from the\n\navailability of high quality general-purpose models in performing their duty to organize and\n\npreserve information. Libraries generally lack the resources to develop their own underlying\n\nmodels\u2014indeed many struggle to staff basic functions, let alone hire specialized software\n\ndevelopers\u2014and yet they face a growing backlog of library materials to be processed and made\n\naccessible for future generations. General-purpose AI models, trained on a vast, beautifully\n\nvariegated corpus of data, offer progress towards a future with libraries in it. Mr. Leppert\n\nrespectfully submits that the Court should consider this among the relevant public benefits in\n\napplying the fair use factors.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\nI.\u200b Libraries Are Essential to American Expression\n\n \u201c[W]hile authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the\n\nultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public, whose access to knowledge copyright seeks\n\nto advance by providing rewards for authorship.\u201d2 Courts should \u201ctake into account the public\n\nbenefits the copying will likely produce\u201d including whether \u201cthose benefits, for example, relate[]\n\nto copyright\u2019s concern for the creative production of new expression.\u201d3 \u201c[T]he primary objective\n\nof copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the Progress of Science and\n\nuseful Arts.\u201d4 Libraries5 share this fundamental purpose of the Copyright Act. For example, the\n\n\n 2\n Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 212 (2d Cir. 2015).\n 3\n Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1, 35 (2021).\n 4\n Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991); U.S. Const. art. I, \u00a7 8, cl. 8.\n 5\n Mr. Leppert is aware that courts and parties across the country may take varied views on the meaning or\nscope of the term \u201clibrary.\u201d As used in this brief, \u201clibrary\u201d refers to institutions that serve their communities through\nlending, promotion of literacy, and archival and preservation efforts as contemplated by 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 108.\n\n \u20133\u2013\n\f Case 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 20\n\n\n\n\nUnited States Library of Congress states its mission is to provide \u201caccess to a rich, diverse and\n\nenduring source of knowledge to inform, inspire and engage you in your intellectual and creative\n\nendeavors.\u201d6 Across other institutions, the language is remarkably consistent: Harvard Library\u2019s\n\nmission7 is to \u201cengage with our communities in the creation and sharing of new knowledge,\u201d\n\nMIT Libraries8 seek to \u201cadvance knowledge by providing a trusted foundation for the generation,\n\ndissemination, use, creative engagement with, and preservation of information\u201d and the New\n\nYork Public Library9 exists to \u201cadvance knowledge by providing free and open access to\n\nmaterials.\u201d The open availability of general-purpose AI models serves and supports an important\n\npublic benefit in that it enables libraries to keep pace with the preservation and accessibility of\n\nhuman knowledge for future generations.\n\n Libraries have formed part of American society since the time of its founding. What\n\nbegan as small, often private collections evolved into subscription-based lending institutions and,\n\neventually, publicly funded institutions serving the general public.10 One purpose of libraries is\n\nto support society\u2019s need for a common and diverse foundation of knowledge. The Founders\n\nspoke of the need for common knowledge as intuitive and innate. In his first address to a newly\n\nformed Congress, George Washington declared: \u201cKnowledge is in every Country the surest basis\n\n\n\n\n 6\n About the Library Overview, Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/about/\n[https://perma.cc/B394-2F76] (last visited Oct. 29, 2026).\n 7\n About Harvard Library, Harvard Library, https://library.harvard.edu/about\n[https://perma.cc/V7KU-RWKL] (last visited Oct. 29, 2026).\n 8\n About us, MIT Libraries, https://libraries.mit.edu/about/vision/vision-mission-values/\n[https://perma.cc/QAU8-S9GA] (last visited Oct. 29, 2026).\n 9\n NYPL\u2019s Mission Statement, New York Public Library, https://www.nypl.org/about/mission\n[https://perma.cc/J3MA-2Q27] (last visited Oct. 29, 2026).\n 10\n Peggy Johnson, Fundamentals of Collection Development and Management 8-9 (4th ed. 2018),\nhttps://alastore.ala.org/sites/default/files/book_samples/9780838916414_sample.pdf [https://perma.cc/BH7Y-AAU7]\n(last visited Oct. 30, 2026).\n\n \u20134\u2013\n\f Case 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 9 of 20\n\n\n\n\nof public happiness,\u201d as he advocated for government support of knowledge institutions.11 John\n\nAdams went a step further, writing in the Massachusetts Constitution that \u201cwisdom, and\n\nknowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people\u201d are \u201cnecessary\n\nfor the preservation of their rights and liberties.\u201d12 James Madison was even more blunt: \u201cA\n\npopular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue\n\nto a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.\u201d13\n\nII.\u200b Libraries Face a Critical Time in American History\n\n Libraries provide an epistemic bedrock for the American experiment by preserving and\n\nmaking accessible what we know, and how we know it. This foundation affords us the\n\nopportunity to ground our national discourse and collective decision-making in a common\n\nknowledge: a shared inheritance of information, accessible regardless of stature or station, that\n\ngrows with inquiry and experience. It fosters connections between ideas and experiences,\n\nexpressed across languages and cultures, allowing us to discover that we have more in common\n\nthan we might initially know.\n\n Yet there are signs that our common knowledge may be faltering. In a pair of 2025 Pew\n\nResearch Center surveys, eight in ten adults said Republican and Democratic voters cannot agree\n\non basic facts,14 and more than half said they find it difficult to determine what is true when\n\n\n\n 11\n George Washington, George Washington to the United States Senate and House of Representatives (Jan.\n8, 1790), Founders Online, Nat\u2019l Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0361\n[https://perma.cc/JF58-9VNS] (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).\n 12\n Mass. Const. pt. 2, ch. V, \u00a7 II, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution [https://perma.cc/6J9Z-44TT]\n(last visited Oct. 30, 2026).\n 13\n James Madison, Letter from James Madison to W. T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), in 9 The Writings of James\nMadison 103 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1900-1910), https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s35.html\n[https://perma.cc/U2AQ-NLEN].\n 14\n Elisa Shearer, Most Americans say Republican and Democratic voters cannot agree on basic facts, Pew\nResearch Center (July 30, 2025),\nhttps://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/30/most-americans-say-republican-and-democratic-voters-cannot-\nagree-on-basic-facts/ [https://perma.cc/D5AD-9MQJ].\n\n \u20135\u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 10 of 20\n\n\n\n\ngetting their news.15 This divide extends to how Americans understand their own history. In\n\n2024, 79% of Biden supporters said the legacy of slavery still affects the position of Black\n\nAmericans today, compared with just 27% of Trump supporters.16 The 1619 Project17 and 1776\n\nCommission,18 two sharply different accounts of our nation\u2019s origins, reflect these differences.\n\nThrough the 1619 Project, the New York Times Magazine \u201caim[ed] to reframe the country\u2019s\n\nhistory\u201d around \u201cthe consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans.\u201d The\n\nTrump administration responded with the 1776 Commission, meant to counteract \u201cscholarship\n\n[that] has vilified our Founders and our founding\u201d and instead promote \u201ca shared identity rooted\n\nin our founding principles.\u201d19 The narratives of each project were ostensibly woven from the\n\nhistorical record, against which anyone should be able to test the projects\u2019 interpretations.\n\nLibraries have preserved this historical record for centuries, and continue to provide materials by\n\nwhich anyone can research these competing narratives and compare them to the primary source\n\nmaterial. A robust and accessible historical record permits Americans to develop their own\n\nunderstanding, and to participate in public debate.\n\n An emerging crisis of authenticity is further compounding our divisions. The rise of\n\nsmartphones with powerful cameras, widely accessible editing tools, and social media platforms\n\nspurred calls of \u201cfake news\u201d from all corners. The wide availability of AI has further blurred the\n\nline between what content is real and what is imagined. While libraries stop short of arbitrating\n\n\n 15\n Luxuan Wang & Joanne Haner, Many Americans say they often come across inaccurate news \u2013 and have\na hard time knowing what\u2019s true, Pew Research Center (Oct. 29, 2025),\nhttps://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/29/many-americans-say-they-often-come-across-inaccurate-news-\nand-have-a-hard-time-knowing-whats-true/ [https://perma.cc/5REX-TBET].\n 16\n Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election, Pew Research Center (June 6, 2024),\nhttps://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/06/cultural-issues-and-the-2024-election/\n[https://perma.cc/9E2R-UAXT].\n 17\n Nikole Hannah-Jones, The 1619 Project., The N.Y. Times Mag. (Aug. 14, 2019),\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).\n 18\n Exec. Order No. 13958, 85 Fed. Reg. 70951 (Nov. 2, 2020).\n 19\n Id.\n\n \u20136\u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 11 of 20\n\n\n\n\nwhat is true (and many materials within libraries contain untruths), they do strive to preserve the\n\nevidence needed to establish authenticity in the form of provenance chains that document the\n\norigins, ownership, and custodial histories of materials. These provenance chains help\n\nsociety\u2014individually and collectively\u2014decide how materials should weigh on truth, and allow\n\nus to build and create new ideas upon their contents. Without this provenance, the foundations of\n\nknowledge risk becoming mired in hallucinations and eroded by uncertainty until they can no\n\nlonger support the weight of new inquiry.\n\nIII.\u200b Libraries Rely on Robust General-Purpose Models\n\n\u200b A.\u200b Libraries Struggle to Meet Their Goals of Preservation and Access\n\n For nearly four centuries, libraries in North America have studiously carried out their\n\nmissions, collecting and preserving an ever-expanding landscape of knowledge. Each year, some\n\n9,000 public library systems and their branches20\u2014the classic neighborhood libraries of\n\nAmericana\u2014account for over two billion circulations, serving more than 150 million registered\n\nusers and welcoming countless others who visit their halls and websites for other services.21\n\nAdding our academic, government, and other libraries, the total reaches 120,000 libraries,\n\nhundreds of millions of patrons, and collections numbering in the billions.22\n\n At the same time that the historical record has become a cultural battleground, we have\n\nunderinvested in preserving it. As Mr. Leppert has learned firsthand, the need for libraries\u2019\n\nservices far outstrips their operational capacity. Libraries are working tirelessly to preserve and\n\n 20\n Public Libraries Survey (PLS), Institute of Museum and Library Services,\nhttps://www.imls.gov/research-evaluation/surveys/public-libraries-survey-pls [https://perma.cc/B7ZE-78BK] (last\nvisited Oct. 29, 2025).\n 21\n Marisa Pelczar et al., Public Libraries Survey Fiscal Year 2024: Data File Documentation and User\u2019s\nGuide, Institute of Museum and Library Services (June 2026),\nhttps://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/PublicLibrariesSurvey_FiscalYear2024_DataDocumentationandUse\nrsGuide.pdf [https://perma.cc/P3GQ-M8QQ].\n 22\n Statistics -- Library, American Library Association, https://www.ala.org/tools/atoz/statistics-library\n[https://perma.cc/B7R9-7JSQ] (last visited Oct. 30, 2026).\n\n \u20137\u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 12 of 20\n\n\n\n\ncategorize their collections for future generations. This work includes digitizing physical\n\ncollections to preserve their contents and extend public access beyond the library walls.\n\nLibraries across the nation are racing against time to scan the pages of books and newspapers,\n\nphotograph artifacts, and 3D-scan other materials. Based on Mr. Leppert\u2019s work, he estimates\n\nthat, at current rates, it will take libraries hundreds of years to digitize their existing materials, let\n\nalone new items added in the meantime. Over such a long horizon, materials will decay before\n\nthey can be digitally preserved, and generations will pass without access to the knowledge they\n\ncontain. We can only estimate because no one truly knows the full extent of library holdings or\n\nthe wealth of knowledge that remains just out of reach\u2014not even the libraries themselves. By\n\nthe time digital databases arrived in the 1960s, libraries had been collecting materials for\n\nhundreds of years and cataloging them using physical systems, most famously the card catalog.\n\nMillions of these cards are still filed away in cabinets, waiting to be converted into\n\nmachine-readable records before a full account can be made.\n\n Cataloging backlogs continue to grow as many libraries struggle to process the steady\n\nstream of new items at the rate they arrive. In the case of large donations, where, for instance, a\n\nprominent figure bequeaths their papers, years can pass before the materials are fully indexed and\n\ndescribed, and become generally findable within a library\u2019s systems. The result is vast swaths of\n\nknowledge and history that remain effectively invisible to humans and machines alike. Libraries\n\nare acutely aware of this, which is one reason they prioritize preservation. Preservation not only\n\nextends the usable life of materials, it buys time for society to invest in the work of extending\n\naccess to them through processes like digitization. Libraries prioritize preservation because they\n\ncan only do so much: by preserving as many materials as possible, they maximize the chance\n\nthat new tools will be developed that reduce the cost of increasing access, and new technologies\n\n\n\n \u20138\u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 13 of 20\n\n\n\n\nwill provide incentives to invest in creating and maintaining it. The Internet is one of those\n\ntechnologies. The ability to easily exchange digital information with parties across the world\n\nchanged the nature and value of information access, leading Google to create Google Books, the\n\nsingle largest library digitization effort to date. Since 2004, the Google Books project has\n\nscanned tens of millions of books from library collections, indexing their contents to make them\n\nsearchable while providing digital copies back to the libraries for their use and preservation.23\n\nThis led to the creation of HathiTrust, a consortium of more than 290 libraries that make their\n\ndigitized collections available for browsing, citation, and computational research, ushering in a\n\nnew era for digital humanities research.24\n\n Preservation is but one facet of the mission of libraries: their goal is not merely to hold\n\nknowledge but to animate and facilitate its use. These goals face significant barriers, and the\n\nbarriers grow with scale. Access to knowledge was once limited by the cost and onerous process\n\nof physically acquiring materials; Harvard Library, the oldest library system in the U.S., began\n\nwhen John Harvard bequeathed his personal library of 400 volumes to the college that came to\n\nbear his name.25 But the availability of materials has steadily increased, revealing new limits in\n\nthe form of practical access: how can library patrons effectively search for and discover\n\ninformation when Harvard Library now contains not 400, but over 400 million physical items?26\n\n\n\n 23\n Haimin Lee, 15 years of Google Books, Google (Oct. 17, 2019),\nhttps://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/search/15-years-google-books/ [https://perma.cc/RL7Q-GPB5].\n 24\n Kevin O\u2019Brien, HathiTrust, 99 J. Med. Libr. Ass\u2019n 177, 177-78 (2011),\nhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3066577/\n 25\n About Harvard Library, Harvard Library, https://library.harvard.edu/about\n[https://perma.cc/V7KU-RWKL] (last visited Oct. 29, 2026); Jennifer Tomase, Tale of John Harvard\u2019s surviving\nbook, Harv. Gazette (Nov. 1, 2007),\nhttps://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/11/tale-of-john-harvards-surviving-book/\n[https://perma.cc/U7MS-XPYK].\n 26\n Stephen Abrams, 2025 World Digital Preservation Day: Why Preserve?, Harvard Library (Nov. 6, 2025),\nhttps://preservation.library.harvard.edu/news/2025/11/2025-world-digital-preservation-day-why-preserve\n[https://perma.cc/WY3L-GL34].\n\n \u20139\u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 14 of 20\n\n\n\n\nThe Library of Congress\u2014arguably the world\u2019s largest\u2014adds 10,000 items every working day.27\n\nThe need to catalog digital media has only accelerated this growth. U.S. academic libraries now\n\nprovide access to nearly 4.5 billion digital and electronic collection items28 in addition to web\n\narchiving efforts, such as the Library of Congress\u2019s 5.7 petabyte archive.29 The number of\n\nAmerican library patrons has also grown enormously, from an estimated 26 million registered\n\npublic library borrowers in the 1930s to more than 150 million in 2023\u2014from about 20% of the\n\npopulation to nearly half.30 What began as hand-curated collections of neatly packed books has\n\nthus grown into towering piles of media, physical and virtual, climbing higher each day. The\n\nneed to catalog collections, and quickly, grows more urgent.\n\n B.\u200b AI Supports Preservation and Access At Scale\n\n Libraries\u2019 relevance depends upon their ability to catalog diverse information at the scale\n\nand speed at which society produces it. It is no surprise that libraries are turning to AI to help\n\norganize, preserve, and provide access to their collections. AI is capable of revealing both\n\nexplicit and latent relationships within immense volumes of information\u2014connecting words to\n\nconcepts to ideas to people\u2014in ways that were not possible even five years ago. It can read\n\ndecaying text from ancient manuscripts and correlate it with sentiments expressed in modern\n\nprose. It can bridge languages to find commonalities between seemingly disparate worldviews,\n\nand trace the historical record to allow deep inquiry into the origins of our ideologies.\n\n\n 27\n Fascinating Facts, Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/about/fascinating-facts\n[https://perma.cc/2YA2-U6TY] (last visited Oct. 29, 2026).\n 28\n Nat\u2019l Ctr. for Educ. Statistics, Table 8. Number of items in library collections and the number of times\nitems are in circulation at Title IV degree-granting institutions, by level and control of institution, and type of library\ncollection or circulation: United States, fiscal year 2023, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (2023),\nhttps://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/search/viewtable?query=library&returnUrl=%2Fsearch&tableId=36549.\n 29\n Abbie Grotke et al., Web Archiving at the Library After 25 Years, Library of Congress Blogs (Jan. 12,\n2026), https://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2026/01/web-archiving-at-the-library-after-25-years/\n[https://perma.cc/7W8L-R37W].\n 30\n Carleton Bruns Joeckel, Library Service, U.S. Gov\u2019t Printing Office (1938),\nhttps://books.google.com/books/about/Library_service.html?id=OZohAAAAMAAJ [https://perma.cc/4U82-5V8G]\n\n \u2013 10 \u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 15 of 20\n\n\n\n\n Beyond mere passive consumers of AI, libraries are active participants who are building\n\nand training their own tools on the foundation of general-purpose models. For example, the\n\nBoston Public Library and the Institutional Data Initiative at the Harvard Law School Library\n\ncollaborated to train custom AI models, built on general-purpose base models, to turn historical\n\nnewspaper scans into structured data by segmenting complex page layouts, extracting text,\n\nrecovering reading order, and classifying individual page elements.31 The University of Texas at\n\nAustin Libraries developed a workflow in which general-purpose large language models read\n\nimages of CDs and LPs, extract bibliographic metadata, and prepare catalog records for librarian\n\nreview.32 The Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library developed an AI system using\n\ngeneral-purpose models to allow patrons to converse with a collection of roughly 300,000\n\narchival records rather than simply browse or search them.33 And researchers at Purdue\n\nUniversity Libraries used general-purpose language models to transform more than 45,000 pages\n\nof historical U.S. Department of Agriculture plant records into a structured dataset for\n\ncomputational humanities research.34\n\n General-purpose models are uniquely suited to support the missions of libraries. Because\n\nthe predictions that AI models make are informed by what they encountered in their training\n\n\n\n 31\n Matteo Cargnelutti et al., Institutional Newspapers Pipeline: Deriving Billions of High Quality Token\nfrom Historical Newspapers, arXiv (Aug. 19, 2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18972\n[https://perma.cc/QXH6-GPQ9].\n 32\n Hannah Moutran, Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Music Cataloging Project, Coalition for Networked\nInformation (Jan. 14, 2026),\nhttps://www.cni.org/topics/information-access-retrieval/artificial-intelligence-assisted-music-cataloging-project\n[https://perma.cc/BLX8-9U3K].\n 33\n Pengce Wange et al., The Living Library: Transforming Archival Collections into Conversational\nKnowledge Systems \u2013 Lessons from the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library, arXiv (Sept. 8, 2026),\nhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09368 [https://perma.cc/N9F4-5ZUS].\n 34\n Spencer Dean Stewart & Sankriti Sinha, Retrieving Information from Unstructured Historical Sources\nUsing Large Language Models, 1 Computational Humanities Research 17 (2025),\nhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/computational-humanities-research/article/retrieving-information-from-uns\ntructured-historical-sources-using-large-language-models/845FDD146FF8A9283A32BFF0C3160F5F\n[https://perma.cc/B53L-BNUD].\n\n \u2013 11 \u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 16 of 20\n\n\n\n\ndata, models trained on a broader and more diverse range of inputs are better positioned to\n\nnavigate the varied materials in library collections.35 Many such\n\nuses are functional, and distant from any particular expression.\n\nFor example, the layouts of newspapers have changed drastically\n\nover time. In 1769, paper was precious and the newspapers of\n\nthat era were typeset by hand to within an inch of their lives, with\n\nnarrow gutters between dense columns of text and relatively few\n\nillustrations to interrupt them.36 By the 1880s, illustrations were\n\ncommonplace, and newspapers had just begun to reproduce\n\nphotographs, leading text to flow around increasingly intricate\n\nlayouts and trace more complex paths around the page for the\n\nreader\u2019s eye to follow. 100 years later, paper was abundant and\n\ninexpensive, and page design was increasingly computerized,\n\nresulting in newspapers with luxuriously wide columns, large\n\ncolor photos pushing articles across pages, and elements of\n\nmodern magazine design working their way into the daily news.37\n\nThe limitations of a technology define a medium, and as printing\n\nevolved to remove constraints and enable creativity, so too did the\n\nvisual language of newspapers.\n\n\n\n 35\n Shayne Longpre et al., A Pretainer\u2019s Guide to Training Data: Measuring the Effects of Data Age,\nDomain Coverage, Quality, & Toxicity, arXiv (May 22, 2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13169\n[https://perma.cc/F5YP-U2VJ].\n 36\n Image of the Boston Chronicle, (July 31 - Aug. 3, 1769), Mass. Hist. Society, Digital Commonwealth,\nhttps://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth-oai:mc87r695r [https://perma.cc/QW47-NNVK].\n 37\n Image of USA Today Cover Page (Feb. 5, 2009), Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Today\n[https://perma.cc/MQ69-A64V].\n\n \u2013 12 \u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 17 of 20\n\n\n\n\n These differences, taken in aggregate, and not the content of any single article or page,\n\nsignificantly impact a model\u2019s effectiveness for library tasks.38 A model trained only on data\n\nfrom newspapers published during the public domain era is thus unlikely to perform as well on\n\ntasks involving modern newspapers, such as recognizing certain words in their modern spellings\n\nor parsing the contents of pages to make them accessible for full-text search and screen-readers.\n\nIf asked to parse and preserve a single article from a 2002 small-circulation newspaper, a model\n\ntrained on a narrow window of early newspapers would be less likely to make correct predictions\n\nabout how text flows from page to page, which images are connected to which text, and where\n\none article ends and the next begins. In contrast, a general-purpose model which encountered a\n\nbreadth of publications that span eras and the design language within them is more likely to do\n\nwell on tasks involving newspapers from both the 1800s and the 2000s.\n\n Even where libraries train their own AI models to perform library-specific functions, they\n\nrarely if ever develop any model from scratch due to the immense computational resources\n\nrequired to reach the capabilities of existing models, the cost of which regularly reaches beyond\n\none hundred million dollars.39 Instead, they typically draw upon an ecosystem of openly\n\navailable models that have already been trained on a wide range of materials and thereby serve a\n\nwide range of needs. Libraries then extend the training of these models to tailor them to a\n\nspecific task. Because of this, libraries depend as much upon the ability of developers in the\n\nbroader model ecosystem to train on diverse materials as they do upon their own ability to\n\naugment models with additional training. Without a broader model ecosystem in which the cost\n\n\n 38\n Catherine Chen et al., Are Layout-Infused Language Models Robust to Layout Distribution Shifts? A Case\nStudy with Scientific Documents, arXiv (June 1, 2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.01058\n[https://perma.cc/9ZFG-5BRY].\n 39\n Nestor Maslej et al., The AI Index 2025 Annual Report, AI Index Steering Committee, Institute for\nHuman-Centered AI, Stanford University (2025), https://hai.stanford.edu/assets/files/hai_ai_index_report_2025.pdf\n[https://perma.cc/A4SM-Q7B7].\n\n \u2013 13 \u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 18 of 20\n\n\n\n\nof training capable base models can be shared rather than duplicated, most libraries would not be\n\nable to create models to suit their needs. The ability of libraries to use these tools therefore\n\ndepends not only on access to AI models, but on whether those models can be trained on the\n\nbroad swath of materials libraries serve.\n\n A robust ecosystem of general-purpose models is thus integral to libraries\u2019 needs; limiting\n\nmodel training to a subset of materials\u2014curated perhaps by cost, or commercial importance, or\n\nthe practical availability of a licensing contract\u2014would reduce the effectiveness of those models\n\nin preserving and making available materials outside of that distribution. Stretches of our shared\n\ncultural history could appear as dark ages in the computationally accessible historic record,\n\nexcluded from the accessibility advancements and connected knowledge fabric that AI models\n\nenable. Precision could be limited to old materials whose copyrights have ended; newer\n\ncontent\u2014especially physical media living in the era between the end of the public-domain and\n\nthe beginning of digital media\u2014could become as challenging to catalog and surface as the ornate\n\nilluminated manuscripts of yore. Providing Plaintiffs the absolute control they seek would serve\n\nto \u201climit, rather than expand, public knowledge.\u201d40\n\nIV.\u200b Still, Consider the Library\n\n Though some may argue that fears of library obsolescence are misguided, or overblown,\n\nor even purely hypothetical, so too are the horribles paraded by the Plaintiffs in this action. For\n\nexample, Plaintiffs suggest that the training of general-purpose models threatens the market for\n\ntheir works because a motivated user could prompt a general-purpose model to regurgitate the\n\nwhole of a particular work or fiction or old news story.41 But we should not overlook the\n\n\n\n 40\n Author\u2019s Guild, 804 F.3d at 212; see also Google v. Oracle, 593 U.S. 1, 39 (2021) (permitting an absolute\nmonopoly over copyrighted work would \u201cinterfere with, not further, copyright\u2019s basic creativity objectives.\u201d)\n 41\n See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1982 at 13, Dkt. No. 2108 at 65.\n\n \u2013 14 \u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 19 of 20\n\n\n\n\nexistence of libraries, from which members of the public are free to enjoy published works such\n\nas the Plaintiffs\u2019 books and yesterday\u2019s newspapers in their entirety, if only libraries make it\n\npossible to find them among the stacks. More than 150 million Americans hold public library\n\ncards.42 Those cards enable Americans to borrow and consume complete works, free of charge,\n\nfrom which to learn, explore, and develop a common knowledge. By contrast, cobbling together\n\nan infringing work through prompting a general-purpose AI model would likely take enormous\n\neffort, and could incur substantial cost to the user. In short, Americans who wish to read Game\n\nof Thrones do not have to devote hours to piecing it back together using AI. They need only visit\n\ntheir local library.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n Mr. Leppert hopes that the Court will find this discussion helpful as it considers how to\n\nresolve the pending motions in this action.\n\nDate: October 30, 2026\u200b Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n ____________________________________\n Matthew S. Warren (State Bar No. 4016275)\u200b\n Erika H. Warren (pro hac vice pending)\n WARREN LLP\n 2261 Market Street, No. 606\n San Francisco, California, 94114\n +1 (415) 895-2940\n +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile\n 25-3143@cases.warrenllp.com\n\n Attorneys for [Proposed] Amicus Curiae\n Greg Leppert\n\n\n\n\n 42\n Public Libraries Survey: Fiscal Year 2024 Data Documentation and User\u2019s Guide, Institute of Museum\nand Library Services (2026),\nhttps://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/PublicLibrariesSurvey_FiscalYear2024_DataDocumentationandUse\nrsGuide.pdf [https://perma.cc/TE6E-E6GH]\n\n \u2013 15 \u2013\n\fCase 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1508-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 20 of 20\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE\n\n Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(c), the above-named counsel certifies that this brief complies\n\nwith the word-count limitation set by the Court\u2019s Order of August 7, 2026 (Dkt. No. 1663). As\n\ncalculated by the word-count function of the word-processing program used to prepare this brief,\n\nthe brief contains 4,491 words, excluding the caption, table of contents, table of authorities,\n\nsignature block, and this certificate.\n\n\n\n\n \u2013 16 \u2013\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-30T20:29:17.839163-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656384","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1[Proposed] Brief of Amicus Curiae Gregory Leppert in Support of Defenda","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499603065/","id":499603065,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/62/2/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T20:28:49.548010-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:35:14.786283-08:00","sha1":"9062a9ec5abfbf28cf5e2ecf3d358fa90321803a","page_count":2,"file_size":70166,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598.62.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:26-cv-08892-SHS Document 83-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 2\n\f Case 1:26-cv-08892-SHS Document 83-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nIN RE: OPENAI, INC.\nCOPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Case No.25-md-3143 (SHS) (OTW)\nLITIGATION\n\nThis Document Relates to:\nAll Cases\n\n\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING GREG LEPPERT\u2019S MOTION FOR\n LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS\n\n Having considered the Motion by Gregory Leppert for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief\n\nin support of Defendants and the accompanying proposed amicus curiae brief, the Court hereby\n\nGRANTS the Motion, and ORDERS the amicus curiae brief filed in this action.\n\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\n\nDate: _______________, 2026\u200b __________________________________\n\u200b \u200b Sidney H. Stein\n\u200b \u200b United States District Judge\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-30T20:37:49.432952-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656385","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2[Proposed] Order Granting Gregory Leppert's Motion for Leave to Fi","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T18:08:00.952155-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:08:00.957770-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"20:09:53","entry_number":62,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":305,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483773359/","id":483773359,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499596813/","id":499596813,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/63/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T18:07:48.761858-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:07:48.768840-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"63","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656487","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"File Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499597924/","id":499597924,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/63/1/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T18:28:45.157247-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:36:15.167431-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":9,"file_size":194057,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"63","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127040656488","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit IIPSJ Amici Curiae Brief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T18:07:48.735153-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:07:48.746025-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"20:30:10","entry_number":63,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":307,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483764706/","id":483764706,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499587190/","id":499587190,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/53/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:11:15.944274-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T16:11:15.952699-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"53","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040654881","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"File Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499588805/","id":499588805,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/53/1/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:28:53.190021-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:29:15.769123-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":31,"file_size":307679,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"53","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127040654882","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A - Proposed Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499588806/","id":499588806,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/53/2/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:28:53.215441-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:29:15.791156-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":159455,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"53","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127040654883","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B - Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T16:11:15.919551-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T16:11:15.925606-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"17:42:12","entry_number":53,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":271,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483764661/","id":483764661,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499587145/","id":499587145,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/54/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:11:08.314986-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T16:11:08.327928-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"54","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040654984","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"File Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499588329/","id":499588329,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/54/1/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:19:40.437052-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:29:54.742123-08:00","sha1":"0ead90be1c24a918725996e8c9d293702a9001d0","page_count":30,"file_size":353155,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598.54.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 30\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 30\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\n\nIN RE: OPENAI, INC., No.: 1:25-md-03143 (SHS) (OTW)\nCOPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT\nLITIGATION Hon. Sidney H. Stein\n\nThis document Relates to:\nAll Cases\n\n\n\n\n PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AI SAFETY ASIA, BRIAN J. A. BOYD,\nBUDDHISM & AI INITIATIVE, CARA PROJECT, INC., CHARLES CAMOSY, DAVID\n ATKINSON, EDTECH LAW CENTER PLLC, FUTURE OF LIFE INSTITUTE,\nIRREPLACEABLE, JOHN C. HAVENS, NO\u0112SIS COLLABORATIVE, PROGRESSIVE\n DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA, RADICALXCHANGE FOUNDATION, THE TECH\nOVERSIGHT PROJECT, WALTER SCHEIRER, AND YOUNG PEOPLE\u2019S ALLIANCE\n IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 30\n\n\n\n\n PROPOSED AMICI CURIAE\n\n AI Safety Asia, Non-profit organization\n\n Brian J. A. Boyd, Affiliated Scholar, Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies, Univ. of\n\n Southern California\n\n Buddhism & AI Initiative, Volunteer project and collaborative network\n\n Cara Project, Inc.\n\n Charles Camosy, Professor, Catholic Univ. of America\n\n David Atkinson, Fellow, Georgetown Univ. Law Center\n\n EdTech Law Center PLLC, Consumer protection law firm\n\n Future of Life Institute, Non-profit organization\n\n Irreplaceable, Non-profit organization\n\n John C. Havens, Author, Heartificial Intelligence: Embracing Our Humanity to Maximize\n\n Machines\n\n No\u0113sis Collaborative, Non-profit organization\n\n Progressive Democrats of America, Non-profit organization\n\n RadicalxChange Foundation, Non-profit organization\n\n The Tech Oversight Project, Non-profit organization\n\n Walter Scheirer, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Univ. of Notre Dame\n\n Young People\u2019s Alliance, Non-profit organization\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 30\n\n\n\n\n CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT\n\n The proposed Amici Curiae are individuals, non-profit organizations, and privately held\n\ncompanies, none of which have a parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 10%\n\nor more of any of their stock.\n\n\n STATEMENT REGARDING AUTHORSHIP AND FUNDING\n\n No party\u2019s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part. No party, party\u2019s counsel, or\n\nother person, other than the amici and their counsel, have borne the costs of this brief.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 30\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\nPROPOSED AMICI CURIAE\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..i\n\nCORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026ii\n\nSTATEMENT REGARDING AUTHORSHIP AND FUNDING\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026...ii\n\nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026v\n\nINTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 1\n\nSUMMARY OF ARGUMENT\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20261\n\nARGUMENT\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20264\n\n I. Defendants\u2019 use of copyrighted works does not satisfy the purpose\n Of copyright law and does not justify use\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20264\n\n II. If Defendants\u2019 use of Plaintiffs\u2019 works is fair use, then so must\n Virtually all unauthorized and uncompensated uses by humans\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.7\n\n A. AI systems learning from patterns is not relevantly\n Different from how humans learn\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20269\n\n B. As with humans, AI models cannot obtain facts without\n Also consuming the expression of works\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..10\n\n C. Humans, like AI systems, usually generate novel outputs\n And rarely say or write anything that matches what we\u2019ve\n Seen, heard, and read verbatim\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.12\n\n D. The inefficient learning of AI systems should not excuse\n further infringement\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..13\n\n III. Defendants\u2019 differences only reinforce that they should not be granted\n Fair use\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..13\n\n IV. There is no implied license to reproduce Plaintiffs\u2019 works ..\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026...14\n\n A. Publicly available is not the same as public domain...\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.15\n\n B. Defendants\u2019 ravenous scraping is unlike traditional search\n Engines and undermines the internet\u2019s economics..\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202616\n iii\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 30\n\n\n\n\n V. If the court affirms GenAI exceptionalism, it will undermine progress\n in science and the useful arts\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..18\n\nCONCLUSION\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..18\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\f Case 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 30\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page\nCases\n\n\nABKCO Music, Inc. v. Sagan (2d Cir. 2022) (S.D.N.Y. 2012)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. 15\n\nAmerican Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. 11\n\nAuthors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.8\n\nCarreyrou v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:25-cv-10897-PCP (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202616\n\nKadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417-VC (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2025)\n 788 F. Supp. 3d at 1050\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20263, 8, 9, 13\n\nIn Re: OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW\n(S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. passim\n\nPsihoyos v. Pearson Educ., Inc., 855 F. Supp. 2d 103\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202615\n\nSony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..4\n\n\nPublications\n\n\nDavid Atkinson, Unfair Learning: GenAI Exceptionalism and Copyright Law, 25\nChi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 43 (2026)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202617\n\nSam Altman, The Gentle Singularity, SAM ALTMAN BLOG (Jun. 10, 2025, 5:12 PM),\nhttps://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity. \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u20264\n\nGeoff Blumfiel, AI solved one of math's hardest problems. Humanity learned\nnothing (so far), NPR (Sep. 22, 2026, 7:08 AM), https://www.npr.org/2026/09/22/nx-s1-\n5968588/openai-navier-stokes-problem-mathematicians-learn-little......................................5\n\nTom B. Brown et al., Language Models are Few-Shot Learners, ARXIV (Jul. 22, 2020),\nhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.14165............................................................................................13\n\nJean-Stanislas Denain, Anson Ho, & Jamie Sevilla, How many digital workers could\nOpenAI deploy?, EPOCH AI (Oct. 3, 2025), https://epoch.ai/gradient-updates/how-many-digital-\nworkers-could-openai-deploy................................................................................................14\n\n\n\n v\n\f Case 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 30\n\n\n\n\nJim Edwards, Cloudflare CEO says Google is abusing its monopoly in search to feed its AI,\nFORTUNE (Nov. 13, 2025, 4:32 AM), https://fortune.com/2025/11/13/cloudflare-ceo-google-\nabusing-monopoly-search-ai/.......................................................................................................17\n\nSuchin Gururangan, et al., Whose Language Counts as High Quality? Measuring Language\nIdeologies in Text Data Selection, in EMNLP 2022, THE 2022 CONFERENCE ON EMPIRICAL\nMETHODS IN NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING, PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE, 2562\n(Dec. 2022), https://aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-main.165.pdf \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026...11\n\nTiffany Hsu & Stuart A. Thompson, Disinformation Researchers Raise Alarms\nAbout A.I. Chatbots, NEW YORK TIMES (Feb. 8, 2023, 3:21 PM),\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/technology/ai-chatbots-disinformation.html....................7\n\nCade Metz, OpenAI Says It Has Cracked One of Math\u2019s \u2018Millennium Problems\u2019,\nNEW YORK TIMES (Sep 8, 2026, 5:39 PM),\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/08/science/openai-proof-millennium-problem.html \u2026\u2026\u20265\n\nCade Metz, The Liftoff Scenario That Terrifies A.I. Doomsayers, NEW YORK TIMES, (Sep 16,\n2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/16/science/ai-recursive-self-improvement.html........4\n\nRachel Metz, Brody Ford, & Madlin Mekelburg, Microsoft Spent Over $100 Billion\non OpenAI Partnership, BLOOMBERG (May 13, 2026, 1:15 PM),\nhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-13/microsoft-spent-over-100-billion-on-\nopenai-partnership-to-date............................................................................................................5\n\nRuchika Joshi & Michal Luria, AI-Powered Deception: A Deeper Dimension of Dark Design\nPatterns in Conversational AI Tools and Platforms, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECH\n(SEP. 15, 2025). https://cdt.org/insights/ai-powered-deception-a-deeper-dimension-of-dark-\ndesign-patterns-in-conversational-ai-tools-and-platforms/ \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..7\n\nDavid Klepper & Ali Swenson, AI-generated disinformation poses threat of misleading\nvoters in 2024 election, PBS (May 14, 2024, 7:52 PM),\nhttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ai-generated-disinformation-poses-threat-of-misleading-\nvoters-in-2024-election..................................................................................................................7\n\nSri Muppidi, OpenAI Considers New Financing at a $1.5 Trillion Valuation, NEW YORK TIMES\n(Sep. 16, 2026, 10:57 AM), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/16/business/dealbook/openai-\nnew-funding-round.html................................................................................................................2\n\nBen Shimkus, It took OpenAI's agents 130 billion tokens to crack a 90-year-old math problem,\nBUSINESS INSIDER (Sep. 9, 2026, 11:55 AM), https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-math-\nproblem-solved-tokens-cost-altman-2026-9..................................................................................6\n\nSteve Stecklow & Poppy McPherson, We set out to craft the perfect phishing scam.\nMajor AI chatbots were happy to help., REUTERS (Sep 15, 2025, 10:30 AM),\nhttps://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ai-chatbots-cyber/.......................................7\n vi\n\f Case 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 9 of 30\n\n\n\n\nLoreben Tuquero, AI agents are hacking systems without any input from humans. How did we\nget here?, PBS (Sep. 2, 2026, 2:46 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/ai-agents-are-\nhacking-systems-without-any-input-from-humans-how-did-we-get-here......................................7\n\nJuliana Castro Var\u00f3n & Dylan Freedman, Will A.I. Make Your Brain Lazy? Here\u2019s What\nthe New Research Actually Shows., NEW YORK TIMES (Sep. 29, 2026)\nhttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/09/29/magazine/ai-chatbots-brain-development-\nstudy.html........................................................................................................................................7\n\nOther Authorities\n\nAI Insights, CLOUDFLARE, https://radar.cloudflare.com/ai-insights#crawl-to-refer-ratio (last\nvisited Sep. 11, 2026)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026....17\n\nCommonPile at\nhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2025/hash/52acc050138d6f40dad6f12f91a4ce22\n-Abstract-Datasets_and_Benchmarks_Track.html........................................................................13\n\nMarket capitalization of Microsoft (MSFT),\nhttps://companiesmarketcap.com/microsoft/marketcap/ (last visited Oct. 21, 2026)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.2\n\nIntroducing ChatGPT search, OPENAI (Oct. 31, 2024), https://openai.com/index/introducing-\nchatgpt-search/..............................................................................................................................17\n\nSpaceX Super Intelligence (@SpaceXSI), X (Jul. 10, 2025, 12:01 AM)\nhttps://x.com/SpaceXAI/status/1943158495588815072 (at 12 minutes and 55 seconds into the\nvideo)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..4\n\n\n\n\n vii\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 10 of 30\n\n\n\n\n INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE\n\n Amici curiae are organizations and individuals dedicated to promoting the rule of law and\n\nthe sound administration of justice. Amicus David Atkinson is the lead author of this brief and\n\nhas written extensively on the legal implications of GenAI, including works addressing copyright\n\nand fair use issues. The Amici do not represent any specific commercial interest or party to this\n\nlitigation. Rather, Amici\u2019s interest is ensuring that statutory frameworks are interpreted faithfully\n\naccording to their plain language and legislative intent. Amici submits this brief to offer a\n\nframework to assist the judiciary in analyzing claims of fair use.\n\n\n SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT\n\n If one were designing legal arguments sure to swallow copyright law, one could hardly do\n\nbetter than the arguments made by Defendants in this case. Defendants are demanding an\n\nexemption from copyright law far beyond what any court has ever granted to human beings, and\n\nmore expansive than any court has granted to any other company. The companies are arguing for\n\ngenerative artificial intelligence (\u201cGenAI\u201d) exceptionalism, and if Defendants\u2019 use is fair use under\n\nany theory they or their amici have suggested, then nearly every use by nearly every human is also\n\nfair use because the arguments can universally apply to every individual.\n\n Defendants want the court and the public to believe that written works are intended solely\n\nto be read, implying that learning from the works is, at most, an incidental aim for readers and that\n\ninforming readers is not the intent and purpose of news publishers. In other words, Defendants\n\nwant everyone to believe that their use of written works is special, privileged, and entirely\n\nunconstrained by copyright law, even though they use the works for the same purpose\u2014learning\n\nfrom the work\u2014as does anyone who picks up a newspaper or scrolls through a news article.\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 11 of 30\n\n\n\n\n Defendants also assert that their special privilege rests on the claim that their products,\n\nincluding ChatGPT and Copilot, supposedly provide vast public benefits. Some people do benefit\n\nfrom chatbots, but it would be foolhardy to believe chatbot benefits exceed those provided by\n\nhumans who do not rely on sweeping fair use arguments. This includes the discovery of every field\n\nof science and math, every notable genre of art, and every profound invention. No general-purpose\n\nAI system, let alone a chatbot, has done nearly as much to promote the progress of society. This is\n\ndespite Defendants already training their models on orders of magnitude more content than any\n\nhuman is exposed to. If humans can accomplish so much without dismantling copyright law, then\n\nsurely one tech company aiming for a roughly $1.5 trillion valuation1 and another with a market\n\ncap of over $3.5 trillion2 can do the same.\n\n Moreover, simply being novel or impressive is not sufficient to be \u201ctransformative\u201d in the\n\ncopyright sense of the term. The fact that a model consumes text derived from various sources and\n\nthat its mathematical underpinnings enable it to produce outputs that differ from the source\n\nmaterial is little different, as a practical matter, from human beings reading a variety of different\n\nmaterial and our brains producing novel written work, something that we have done for millennia.\n\n The Defendants also claim that their models somehow only identify \u201cthe facts embodied\n\nin the articles,\u201d3 but this sophistry is targeted at those who may not understand how AI systems\n\nwork. To provide a summary of a work, Defendants must copy the entire work, process it in its\n\nentirety, and only then produce an output. There is no magical software that can somehow skip all\n\n\n\n\n1\n Sri Muppidi, OpenAI Considers New Financing at a $1.5 Trillion Valuation, NEW YORK TIMES (Sep. 16, 2026,\n 10:57 AM), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/16/business/dealbook/openai-new-funding-round.html.\n2\n Market capitalization of Microsoft (MSFT), https://companiesmarketcap.com/microsoft/marketcap/ (last visited\n Oct. 21, 2026).\n3\n Defendants\u2019 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 13, In Re:\n OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026) (ECF\n 1753).\n 2\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 12 of 30\n\n\n\n\nthe expression of a work and extract only facts and ideas. Those facts are embedded within\n\nexpression, and defendants undeniably rely on that expression in their training data and with their\n\nretrieval augmented generation (\u201cRAG\u201d) products to understand the context of the source,\n\nincluding which facts matter most and what they mean or imply. No court has held that a person\n\nor non-AI company can reproduce all the works of the world for free so long as they only provide\n\nsummaries of the contents rather than distribute the original, or so long as they don\u2019t share publicly\n\nwhat\u2019s stored in their brains after reading the content, and there is no compelling reason to bend\n\nthe law for the sake of AI companies.\n\n At base, Defendants are asking for a breathtaking form of exceptionalism to enrich\n\nthemselves while leaving the rest of society more impoverished by reducing the incentive for\n\nhumans to create.\n\n This brief will first address the purpose of copyright law and how Defendants\u2019 technology\n\nfalls short of it compared to humans. Second, it will address the most common misguided\n\narguments, including that because models (a) learn differently from humans;4 (b) use only non-\n\nprotected facts and ideas; (c) generate new material when generating outputs;5 and (d) require\n\nhumongous training datasets, their use is fair use. All of these arguments miss the mark. Third, it\n\nwill explain why there is no implied license to take and use the copyrighted material at issue. The\n\nfinal section will describe the likely negative outcomes if the court supports GenAI\n\nexceptionalism.\n\n\n\n\n4\n See Order Denying the Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Granting Meta\u2019s Cross-Motion for\n Partial Summary Judgment at 17, Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417-VC (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2025)\n (ECF 598).\n5\n See Id.\n 3\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 13 of 30\n\n\n\n\n ARGUMENT\n\nI. Defendants\u2019 use of copyrighted works does not satisfy the purpose of copyright law and\n does not justify fair use.\n\n\n \u201cWhat copyright law cares about, above all else, is preserving the incentive for human\n\nbeings to create artistic and scientific works.\u201d6 Therefore, it\u2019s fair to ask whether granting\n\nDefendants sweeping fair use would promote such progress. But the inquiry must not end there.\n\nTo ensure the court's reasoning is principled, it must also consider why granting such a sweeping\n\nfair use exemption to AI companies would promote science and the useful arts, whereas granting\n\nthe same exemption to humans would not. After reviewing all plausible arguments, the only\n\nconclusion must be that GenAI exceptionalism is unjustified.\n\n The Supreme Court has noted that fair use \u201cidentifies various factors that enable a court to\n\napply an \u2018equitable rule of reason\u2019 analysis to particular claims of infringement.\u201d7 That equitable\n\nanalysis might favor a technology that dramatically accelerates progress. Defendants\u2019 products do\n\nnot. Even GenAI CEOs acknowledge their models have yet to make significant breakthroughs.8\n\nSam Altman claimed in mid-2025 that \u201c2026 will likely see the arrival of systems that can figure\n\nout novel insights.\u201d9 But in September 2026, the New York Times quoted Mark Chen, OpenAI\u2019s\n\nchief research officer, saying, \u201c[t]he big value in human researchers is that they generate all these\n\ncreative ideas all the time. . . . Our models are just not doing that right now.\u201d10 That admission\n\n\n\n6\n Id. at 1.\n7\n Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 447\u201348 (1984).\n8\n In July 2025, Elon Musk stated that \u201cI would expect Grok to . . . literally discover new technologies that are\n actually useful no later than next year and maybe end of this year. . . . And it might discover new physics next\n year and within two years, I'd say almost certainly.\u201d SpaceX Super Intelligence (@SpaceXSI), X (Jul. 10, 2025,\n 12:01 AM) https://x.com/SpaceXAI/status/1943158495588815072 (at 12 minutes and 55 seconds into the video).\n9\n Sam Altman, The Gentle Singularity, SAM ALTMAN BLOG (Jun. 10, 2025, 5:12 PM),\n https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity.\n10\n Cade Metz, The Liftoff Scenario That Terrifies A.I. Doomsayers, NEW YORK TIMES, (Sep 16, 2024),\n https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/16/science/ai-recursive-self-improvement.html.\n 4\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 14 of 30\n\n\n\n\ncomes even though Defendants have already acquired and used virtually all publicly available\n\nmachine-readable data in the world, and Microsoft alone has spent over $100 billion on the OpenAI\n\npartnership.11\n\n In contrast, even without a broad exemption from copyright law and relying on the same\n\ntroves of information, humans have developed theories such as quantum mechanics, inventions\n\nsuch as computers, discoveries such as antibiotics, and new genres of art including rock and roll\n\nand impressionism. Defendants\u2019 chatbot products have not created any comparable breakthroughs\n\ndespite training on billions of documents, videos, images, recordings, and code without\n\nauthorization.\n\n Even OpenAI\u2019s most compelling counterexample, solving hard math problems, is marred\n\nby controversy and suffers from at least five issues:\n\n 1. Mathematicians have alleged that OpenAI may have cribbed from their work after having\n\n already made significant headway on the Millennium Problem.\n\n 2. Mathematicians, including Terence Tao, recipient of the Fields Medal, have said that\n\n merely deriving answers could undermine progress in math because it obscures the learning\n\n that leads to breakthroughs.12\n\n\n\n\n11\n Rachel Metz, Brody Ford, & Madlin Mekelburg, Microsoft Spent Over $100 Billion on OpenAI Partnership,\n BLOOMBERG (May 13, 2026, 1:15 PM), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-13/microsoft-spent-\n over-100-billion-on-openai-partnership-to-date.\n12\n Geoff Blumfiel, AI solved one of math's hardest problems. Humanity learned nothing (so far), NPR (Sep. 22,\n 2026, 7:08 AM), https://www.npr.org/2026/09/22/nx-s1-5968588/openai-navier-stokes-problem-mathematicians-\n learn-little (\u201cBut mathematicians say that, so far, humanity has learned very little from the solution the company's\n AI model purportedly found.\u201d); Cade Metz, OpenAI Says It Has Cracked One of Math\u2019s \u2018Millennium Problems\u2019,\n NEW YORK TIMES (Sep 8, 2026, 5:39 PM), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/08/science/openai-proof-\n millennium-problem.html (\u201cDr. Tao is among the many mathematicians who have publicly warned that the latest\n A.I. systems could end up damaging the field of mathematics. If A.I. technologies can solve the most difficult\n problems with little input from human mathematicians, he says, they could weaken human understanding of the\n field. \u2018The effort needed to solve problems is often very instructive. It teaches you something. It\u2019s like going to\n the gym and having a goal to lift a weight a hundred times,\u2019 he explained. \u2018Now, A.I. can solve questions without\n really getting any value out of them. It\u2019s like having machines that can lift weights for you at the gym.\u2019\u201d).\n 5\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 15 of 30\n\n\n\n\n 3. The method of solving the most famous problem was essentially brute force, with some\n\n 10,000 AI agents burning through several million dollars in compute in just a few days.13\n\n 4. The training material used for math is mostly open-source or in the public domain, so\n\n copyright is largely not implicated. Advanced math models therefore do not depend on a\n\n fair use exemption, and their achievements cannot support one.\n\n 5. The well-formulated problems and the math used to solve the problems were developed\n\n by humans. OpenAI\u2019s solutions were not akin to \u201cdiscovering\u201d the number zero,\n\n imaginary, or irrational numbers, or the development of algebra or calculus, for example.\n\n In sum, defendants have yet to propose a novel problem that, if solved, would meaningfully\n\nimprove society, let alone solve such a problem. It does not make sense to permit mass\n\ninfringement on the hope that perhaps someday the breakthrough will occur. Even if it does, it will\n\nremain less impressive than the breadth and depth of human achievements.\n\n If granting fair use for an entity is likely to lead to profound breakthroughs, it\u2019s far more\n\nlikely to come from humans exposed to a relatively infinitesimal amount of copyrighted work. Yet\n\nCongress and the courts have recognized the wisdom of not granting a broad exemption from the\n\nlaw for humans because, though it may lead to near-term breakthroughs, it would undermine\n\nincentives to continue progress over time. Progress must be thought of in decades and centuries,\n\nnot the sugar high of months or years. The speculative benefits of what AI \u201cmight,\u201d \u201cwill,\u201d or\n\n\u201ccould\u201d do cannot justify present-tense mass infringement.\n\n\n\n\n13\n Ben Shimkus, It took OpenAI's agents 130 billion tokens to crack a 90-year-old math problem, BUSINESS INSIDER\n (Sep. 9, 2026, 11:55 AM), https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-math-problem-solved-tokens-cost-altman-\n 2026-9.\n 6\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 16 of 30\n\n\n\n\n Defendants may have over a billion users,14 but use is not benefit, and some benefit is not\n\nnet benefit. Some people undoubtedly gain utility from the products, but the models have also been\n\nused for fraud,15 deception,16 misinformation,17 disinformation,18 and computer hacking,19 have\n\ncontributed to cognitive surrender,20 and have served other uses that actively harm society. It is far\n\nfrom clear that the nation or the world is better off today than before ChatGPT debuted in 2022\n\nand the system that became Copilot debuted in early 2023. Contrary to OpenAI\u2019s claim that \u201c[the]\n\npublic benefits are vast,\u201d21 there is not enough empirical evidence to rest a fair use defense on the\n\ntechnology's contribution to science and the useful arts, and the argument weakens further once its\n\nharms are weighed against its benefits.\n\nII. If Defendants\u2019 use of Plaintiffs\u2019 works is fair use, then so must virtually all unauthorized\n and uncompensated uses by humans.\n\n\n\n\n14\n See Defendants\u2019 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 7, In Re:\n OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026) (ECF\n 1753).\n15\n See Steve Stecklow & Poppy McPherson, We set out to craft the perfect phishing scam. Major AI chatbots were\n happy to help., REUTERS (Sep 15, 2025, 10:30 AM), https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ai-\n chatbots-cyber/.\n16\n See Ruchika Joshi & Michal Luria, AI-Powered Deception: A Deeper Dimension of Dark Design Patterns in\n Conversational AI Tools and Platforms, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECH (SEP. 15, 2025).\n https://cdt.org/insights/ai-powered-deception-a-deeper-dimension-of-dark-design-patterns-in-conversational-ai-\n tools-and-platforms/\n17\n See Tiffany Hsu & Stuart A. Thompson, Disinformation Researchers Raise Alarms About A.I. Chatbots, NEW\n YORK TIMES (Feb. 8, 2023, 3:21 PM), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/technology/ai-chatbots-\n disinformation.html.\n18\n See David Klepper & Ali Swenson, AI-generated disinformation poses threat of misleading voters in 2024\n election, PBS (May 14, 2024, 7:52 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ai-generated-disinformation-\n poses-threat-of-misleading-voters-in-2024-election.\n19\n See Loreben Tuquero, AI agents are hacking systems without any input from humans. How did we get here?, PBS\n (Sep. 2, 2026, 2:46 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/ai-agents-are-hacking-systems-without-any-\n input-from-humans-how-did-we-get-here.\n20\n See Juliana Castro Var\u00f3n & Dylan Freedman, Will A.I. Make Your Brain Lazy? Here\u2019s What the New Research\n Actually Shows., NEW YORK TIMES (Sep. 29, 2026)\n https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/09/29/magazine/ai-chatbots-brain-development-study.html.\n21\n Defendants\u2019 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 1, In Re:\n OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026) (ECF\n 1753).\n 7\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 17 of 30\n\n\n\n\n There are strong doctrinal and technical reasons why Defendants\u2019 use of Plaintiffs\u2019 works\n\nis not fair use. But each fair use factor can also be tested against a simpler principle: AI companies\n\nshould not receive privileges that courts would refuse to extend to humans absent strong\n\njustification. Applied to the purpose of the use, the amount taken, and the ongoing use of stored\n\ncopies, that principle defeats Defendants\u2019 position.\n\n There would be little dispute that it would not be lawful for students to make an\n\nunauthorized copy of a textbook for a course rather than pay for it, even if the students learn from\n\nthe book, do not particularly enjoy reading it, the book has a minuscule effect on their thinking\n\nrelative to all the other content the students are exposed to in their lives, the students do not quote\n\nthe book at length verbatim, do not distribute unauthorized copies of the book, and the content of\n\nthe book is necessary for them to learn in order to become marketable. And yet, the Defendants\n\nargue that their use of unauthorized copies for pre-training is fair use for those very reasons.\n\n It\u2019s also unclear why LLMs should be allowed to use an unlimited number of complete\n\nbooks or articles to learn, but humans cannot pirate even a single book that they may need. If the\n\nargument is that more books and articles lead to better models, that holds for human brains as well.\n\nThis exposes the weakness of Judge Chhabria\u2019s reasoning in finding that \u201cfeeding a whole book\n\nto an LLM does more to train it than would feeding it only half of that book. With this in mind, it\n\nwas \u2018reasonably necessary\u2019 for Meta to \u2018make use of the entirety of the works.\u2019\u201d22\n\n Similarly, no student is permitted to make unauthorized copies of the hundreds, thousands,\n\nor millions of works they think might be useful to them and keep them as potential references,\n\neven if they use only portions of the works and their subsequent writings do not merely regurgitate\n\n\n\n\n22\n Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1049-50 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (quoting Authors Guild, Inc. v.\n HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2014).\n 8\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 18 of 30\n\n\n\n\nthe content they reference. But the defendants claim their retrieval augmented generation products\n\nare shielded by fair use for analogous actions. If we want to preserve copyright, we cannot accept\n\nthe argument that nearly all uncompensated and unauthorized uses by AI companies and humans\n\nis fair use.\n\n A. AI systems learning from patterns is not relevantly different from how humans\n learn.\n\n At its broadest, Defendants\u2019 argument is that because their AI systems learn from the works\n\nthey copy, the copying is fair use. No one, however, may go to a bookstore or library, make a\n\ncomplete copy of a book or newspaper, and avoid liability because they learned from it. Defendants\n\nshould be held to the same standard.\n\n More narrowly, defendants argue that models don\u2019t learn like humans, and they imply that\n\nthis difference is relevant to a fair use analysis. As Judge Chhabria put it: \u201c[A]n LLM\u2019s\n\nconsumption of a book is different than a person\u2019s. An LLM ingests text to learn \u2018statistical\n\npatterns\u2019 of how words are used together in different contexts. It does so by taking a piece of text\n\nfrom its training data, removing a word from that text, predicting what that word will be, and\n\nupdating its general understanding of language based on whether it was right or wrong\u2014and then\n\nrepeating this exercise billions or trillions of times with different text. This is not how a human\n\nreads a book.\u201d23\n\n Models may learn by detecting patterns in text, but so do humans. Reading is not innate; it\n\nrequires repeated exposure to text. People learn to read by associating words with other words,\n\nsentences with other sentences, and concepts with other concepts. When they do not know what a\n\nword means, they rely on context clues, and grade-school vocabulary lessons often require students\n\n\n\n23\n Kadrey, 788 F. Supp. 3d at 1044.\n 9\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 19 of 30\n\n\n\n\nto complete partial sentences, much as a model predicts a missing word. Each time, human brains\n\nadapt. Nobody can explain how, exactly, but neurochemical transmitters adjust as some\n\nconnections between some neurons strengthen while others weaken. The neural networks that the\n\nAI systems at issue rely on were, in fact, loosely inspired by brain neurons. They are a simplified\n\nversion of what happens in everyone\u2019s heads. There is no legal reason to find that a simplified\n\nversion of a system must be granted greater leniency under fair use than the more complex system\n\non which it is based.\n\n Moreover, differences in the learning process are irrelevant to a fair use analysis. That an\n\nLLM embeds statistical patterns using math is of no consequence and, if anything, is less\n\nimpressive, mysterious, and complex than a human brain transforming photons and sound waves\n\ninto neurochemical signals and storing them as knowledge and skills in living cells that are\n\nconstantly changing. The argument that learning from statistical modeling rather than biological\n\nadaptation favors fair use is simply an argument for GenAI exceptionalism.\n\n B. As with humans, AI models cannot obtain facts without also consuming the\n expression of works.\n\n Arguments that models are only interested in uncopyrightable facts and ideas similarly fail.\n\nIn journalism, facts and ideas often cannot be neatly separated from the expression within which\n\nthey\u2019re embedded. No Defendant's AI system can extract the facts and ideas from the vast majority\n\nof the content at issue without first copying the copyrighted work, including all of its expressive\n\nelements. Defendants elide the fact that they download and process the entire text before presenting\n\na summary as output.\n\n When AI systems demonstrate a certain style or tone in their outputs, it is only possible\n\nbecause they are trained on the expression in the training data, which includes Plaintiffs\u2019 works.\n\nA model cannot accurately imitate a particular journalist merely by extracting factual elements\n 10\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 20 of 30\n\n\n\n\nfrom that journalist's articles, for example. Rather, the model incorporates elements of the\n\njournalists\u2019 expression.24 It is not as if when humans imitate someone, we retain some essence of\n\nthe person\u2019s expression in our brains, but when models imitate someone, they somehow do so\n\nwhile only relying on the underlying ideas of the person\u2019s writing.\n\n The truth is that the Defendants have preferences for the type of data they train on. They\n\nneed varied syntax, edited content, high signal-to-noise-ratio content, and other features that the\n\narticles at issue embody. Relying on less-refined data yields a less useful model, even when the\n\nunderlying facts and ideas are identical.\n\n If the model\u2019s sole focus were the underlying facts and ideas, it could just train on websites\n\nhosting hackneyed news summaries rather than source material from professional journalists and\n\nauthors. The justification would also apply to virtually every math and science student. Few\n\nstudents read textbooks because they\u2019re enthralled by the expression describing the Krebs cycle or\n\ndifferential equations. Rather, the material is a means of accessing the ideas the authors hope to\n\nconvey. Still, students are not permitted to acquire all their textbooks that happen to be \u201cpublicly\n\navailable\u201d from pirate libraries or elsewhere without authorization. Quite the contrary: they must\n\npay a small ransom each semester for the privilege of learning.\n\n This was also the case in American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., where the court\n\nheld that researchers using a for-profit library could not avoid copyright infringement by\n\nsystematically reproducing journal articles. Nobody in Texaco thought the scientists read the\n\njournals purely out of love for the expression in the journals and that learning was an incidental\n\noutcome of their enjoyment. They wanted the knowledge, insights, and ideas in the papers. Yet\n\n\n24\n See, Suchin Gururangan, et al., Whose Language Counts as High Quality? Measuring Language Ideologies in\n Text Data Selection, in EMNLP 2022, THE 2022 CONFERENCE ON EMPIRICAL METHODS IN NATURAL LANGUAGE\n PROCESSING, PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE, 2562 (Dec. 2022), https://aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-\n main.165.pdf (explaining that GPT-3 filter does not upweight factuality but rather mimics news type articles).\n 11\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 21 of 30\n\n\n\n\nfair use did not excuse how they pursued the facts and ideas. The court was correct in Texaco, and\n\nthere is no reason to accept GenAI exceptionalism to evade a similar outcome here.\n\n C. Humans, like AI systems, usually generate novel outputs and rarely say or write\n anything that matches what we\u2019ve seen, heard, or read verbatim.\n\n\n The argument that fair use must apply to defendants\u2019 AI because the training material\n\nenables novel outputs from models is also unhelpful to defendants. Humans also nearly exclusively\n\ncreate and respond to questions and requests with novel or uncopyrightable expressions. We may\n\nhave read hundreds, perhaps thousands, of books and articles, but few of us can recite any\n\nsignificant chunk of any of them with much fidelity. Rather, we read or listen to the material and\n\nparaphrase what we consumed (if we comment on it at all). Also, as with models, no single work\n\nis guaranteed to be of any consequence to learning; rather, the cumulative effect is what is\n\nimportant. But unlike Defendants, humans generally pay \u2014 either directly or indirectly \u2014 for the\n\nmaterial we learn from.\n\n Again and again, Defendants focus on how their AI systems' outputs allegedly do not\n\ninfringe. However, if outputs were all that mattered, humans would almost never infringe on any\n\nworks we reproduced without authorization to learn from. It\u2019s a rare occurrence for an individual\n\nto produce an infringing work. Rarer still is when the infringing work is in response to an off-the-\n\ncuff question, as in the examples provided by defendants, \u201c(e.g., \u2018when does MoMA open\n\ntoday\u2019)\u201d.25 If the basis of the argument must rest on outputs, the Defendants have again failed to\n\ndemonstrate why the court should treat their product differently than it would treat a human.\n\n\n\n\n25\n Defendants\u2019 Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 12, In Re:\n OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026) (ECF\n 1753).\n 12\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 22 of 30\n\n\n\n\n D. The inefficient learning of AI systems should not excuse further infringement.\n\n Defendants may argue that their products require millions or tens of millions of works from\n\nPlaintiffs to learn.26 But claiming that such an extreme volume of material is necessary to create\n\nAI systems is also not a compelling defense. Copyright law offers no exception that permits weaker\n\nlearners to acquire more works without authorization than quicker learners. The fact that a human\n\nreading ten news articles a week for 80 years may \u201conly\u201d read 42,000 articles should not make\n\ntheir use less shielded from copyright law than that of AI models, which apparently need access to\n\nmillions of articles. The inefficiency of model learning cannot grant them sweeping fair use rights,\n\nnor can it mean that the less efficient they are at learning, the greater their rights must be. Society\n\ndoes not allow struggling students to take more copyrighted works without authorization because\n\nthey struggle to learn a concept from just one or a few authorized sources. If defendants want to\n\ninfringe less often, it is incumbent on them to develop technology that does not depend on mass\n\ninfringement;27 it must not be society\u2019s burden to permit mass infringement for the sake of for-\n\nprofit companies.\n\nIII. Defendants\u2019 differences only reinforce that they should not be granted fair use.\n\n To the extent there are meaningful differences between Defendants\u2019 products and humans,\n\nthose differences only serve to reinforce that a finding of fair use would be inappropriate. For\n\nexample, Defendants\u2019 AI systems can read several orders of magnitude more content than any\n\nhuman,28 memorize far more of it than any human ever could, and generate outputs far faster than\n\n\n\n26\n See, e.g., Kadrey, 788 F. Supp. 3d at 1050 (when discussing the third fair use factor: \u201cEveryone agrees that LLMs\n work better if they are trained on more high-quality material. . . . So feeding a whole book to an LLM does more\n to train it than would feeding it only half of that book.\u201d (internal citations omitted)).\n27\n See generally, for example, CommonPile at\n https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2025/hash/52acc050138d6f40dad6f12f91a4ce22-Abstract-\n Datasets_and_Benchmarks_Track.html.\n28\n Even OpenAI\u2019s older model, GPT-3, was trained on 45 terabytes of data. See Tom B. Brown et al., Language\n Models are Few-Shot Learners, ARXIV (Jul. 22, 2020), https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.14165.\n 13\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 23 of 30\n\n\n\n\nany human ever will.29 Each of these is a difference in kind rather than degree, and they alter the\n\ncharacter, reach, and market consequences of defendants\u2019 copying.\n\n The inhuman abilities of Defendants\u2019 products mean they are far more likely to store a\n\ncopy of a work within their systems, to regurgitate those works as outputs, and to drown the\n\nmarkets of plaintiffs. When Congress made the most recent substantive update to copyright law in\n\n1976, they were not contemplating a system that could gulp down over 100 terabytes of data (for\n\ncontext, 100 terabytes can store at least several million text documents, like PDFs) and retain\n\ndetailed information about a significant portion of it, including verbatim details of many of the\n\nworks. Congress was also likely contemplating a human pace of expressive production. For\n\nexample, an author might put out a few decent-quality novels a year on the high end. In contrast,\n\nDefendants\u2019 AI systems can pump out news summaries, essays, and book-length outputs in\n\nseconds or minutes, nonstop, year-round.\n\n A technology\u2019s capacity to produce more material, serve more users, or operate more\n\nquickly does not establish that the uncompensated copying used to build and operate it should be\n\nprivileged. Otherwise, the greater a Defendant\u2019s capacity to exploit copyrighted works and\n\ndisplace their markets, the stronger its fair-use claim would become. That rule would invert\n\ncopyright\u2019s incentive structure: the uses most capable of appropriating value from authors would\n\nreceive the broadest immunity from paying them.\n\nIV. There is no implied license to reproduce Plaintiffs\u2019 works.\n\n An implied license exists when there is no formal or written permission, but the actions,\n\nconduct, or circumstances of a property or intellectual property owner show that they intended to\n\n\n\n29\n OpenAI\u2019s systems were estimated to process around 20 trillion tokens per day in October 2025. Jean-Stanislas\n Denain, Anson Ho, & Jamie Sevilla, How many digital workers could OpenAI deploy?, EPOCH AI (Oct. 3, 2025),\n https://epoch.ai/gradient-updates/how-many-digital-workers-could-openai-deploy.\n 14\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 24 of 30\n\n\n\n\nallow someone else to use it. The Defendants helpfully quote from Field v. Google, which stated\n\nthat \u201c[c]onsent to use the copyrighted work need not be manifested verbally and may be inferred\n\nbased on silence where the copyright holder knows of the use and encourages it.\u201d (emphasis\n\nadded). The Second Circuit has only stated: \u201cWe have not yet ruled \u2018on the precise circumstances\n\nunder which an implied non-exclusive license will be found.\u2019 ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Sagan (2d\n\nCir. 2022), citing Psihoyos v. Pearson Educ., Inc., 855 F. Supp. 2d 103, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)\n\n((internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the Second Circuit noted that an implied license\n\nrequires a \u201cmeeting of the minds between the parties to permit the particular usage at issue,\u201d\n\nPsihoyos, 855 F. Supp. 2d at 124 (internal quotation marks omitted)). There was no meeting of the\n\nminds here.\n\n A. Publicly available is not the same as public domain.\n\n Defendants argue that \u201c[i]t is hard to imagine a fairer use than one a copyright holder can\n\nblock at will.\u201d30 They go on to say that News Plaintiffs\u2019 \u201cknowing decision not to exclude their\n\nworks from Copilot gives rise to an implied license.\u201d31 But the onus shouldn't be on the websites\n\nto opt out. Publicly available is not the same as public domain; works aren't in the public domain\n\nby default, and they are not fair game to copy and use absent explicit notice from the copyright\n\nholder. If Defendants were correct, virtually all unauthorized copies would be fair use because\n\nmost copyright holders would be unaware any given copy was made, and therefore unable to\n\nprotest.\n\n As noted in the Plaintiffs\u2019 brief, the Defendants acquired content through third parties such\n\nas Common Crawl and through anonymous scrapes, so blocking defendant bots via robots.txt\n\n\n30\n Defendant Microsoft Corporation\u2019s Memorandum of Law In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment In News\n Plaintiffs\u2019 Consolidated Cases at 3, In Re: OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 1:25-md-03143-\n SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026) (ECF 1698).\n31\n Id.\n 15\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 25 of 30\n\n\n\n\nwould be of limited use or entirely useless anyway.32 A right to opt-out is not really a right if the\n\nDefendants can simply obtain the content from another source.\n\n The argument for fair use based on public availability is also intellectually dishonest.\n\nAlmost anything can be made publicly available, including ill-gotten content.33 For example,\n\nsomeone could circumvent technological measures meant to limit a work's reproduction or\n\ndistribution and then post it on the public internet, making it publicly available and, according to\n\ndefendants, perfectly fine to use. In fact, pirate websites containing digital versions of at least\n\nmillions of books, articles, and magazines are publicly available. Granting an implied license to\n\npublicly available content is little different from granting a license to any content the defendants\n\ncan acquire.\n\n B. Defendants\u2019 ravenous scraping is unlike traditional search engines and\n undermines the internet's economics.\n\n\n Defendants also seem to misunderstand how the economics of the internet work. Websites\n\ntraditionally permitted, and even encouraged, web indexers to crawl them because it made them\n\nmore discoverable and increased web traffic. Increased web traffic, in turn, brought benefits to the\n\nwebsites. The assumptions that made websites encourage crawling for search, and therefore\n\nsuggested an implied liacense, do not apply to crawling to train AI models.\n\n The difference between the effect of AI scraping and traditional search engines is stark.\n\nWe can see this in data from Cloudflare, through which about a fifth of all internet traffic goes,\n\nand which tracks crawl-to-refer ratios. Cloudflare's CEO claimed that \u201cin the past, for every two\n\n\n32\n News Plaintiffs\u2019 Combined Summary Judgment Brief at 10, In Re: OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement\n Litigation, No. 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026) (ECF 1709).\n33\n In a separate lawsuit, Meta admitted to this in an Answer. Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.\u2019s Answer to the\n Complaint at 12, Carreyrou v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:25-cv-10897-PCP (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026) (ECF 109)\n (\u201cMeta admits that it obtained data from publicly available sources such as Books3, LibGen, Z-Library, and\n Common Crawl \u2026\u201d).\n 16\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 26 of 30\n\n\n\n\npages that Google crawled to inform its search engine, it would, on average, send one visitor to\n\nthose sites. . .\u201d34 It was a mutually beneficial relationship. In contrast, as of September 11, 2026,\n\nOpenAI crawled 333 webpages for every referral it provided. Microsoft\u2019s ratio was 38:1.35\n\nGenerative AI search using RAG is utterly incomparable to traditional search engines.\n\n With RAG, the chatbot fetches current articles at the time of the user's query, ingests them\n\nin full, and then generates an output that eliminates the need for users to click on the source\n\nmaterial. This is, in fact, the intent. When introducing ChatGPT Search, OpenAI stated that\n\n\u201c[g]etting useful answers on the web can take a lot of effort. It often requires multiple searches\n\nand digging through links to find quality sources and the right information for you. Now, chat can\n\nget you to a better answer. . .\u201d36\n\n The basis of the bargain was that search engines could earn money from ad revenue and\n\nwebsites would benefit from an increase in web traffic. That is no longer the case. A bot visiting a\n\npage to scrape its content is not the same as a human visiting a webpage. Human visitors may\n\nsubscribe to a service on the page, generate ad revenue, make a (possibly impromptu) purchase,\n\npromote the website to friends and followers, and otherwise provide some benefit to the website\n\nowner, helping to keep the website sustainable. There are, in fact, several reasons why a person or\n\nentity may want their content to be public while not wanting GenAI bots to scrape them.37\n\n The RAG bots by Defendants, in contrast, do none of these. Their bots don\u2019t generate ad\n\nrevenue; they don\u2019t buy anything from the websites; they don\u2019t share interesting webpages from\n\ntheir nonexistent social media pages. They parasitically extract and exploit. If the search bots were\n\n\n34\n Jim Edwards, Cloudflare CEO says Google is abusing its monopoly in search to feed its AI, FORTUNE (Nov. 13,\n 2025, 4:32 AM), https://fortune.com/2025/11/13/cloudflare-ceo-google-abusing-monopoly-search-ai/.\n35\n AI Insights, CLOUDFLARE, https://radar.cloudflare.com/ai-insights#crawl-to-refer-ratio (last visited Sep. 11, 2026).\n36\n Introducing ChatGPT search, OPENAI (Oct. 31, 2024), https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-search/.\n37\n See David Atkinson, Unfair Learning: GenAI Exceptionalism and Copyright Law, 25 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 43\n (2026).\n 17\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 27 of 30\n\n\n\n\nsuch a boon for websites, defendants would have shared click-through rates, provided internal\n\ncrawl-to-referral ratios, or provided other data showing how their actions clearly benefit websites\n\nin ways comparable to traditional search engine indexing. Indeed, if the benefits were obvious,\n\nPlaintiffs would have likely encouraged more scraping.\n\nV. If the court affirms GenAI exceptionalism, it will undermine progress in science and the\n useful arts.\n\n Defendants seek a privilege that would be unthinkable for even the most accomplished\n\nindividual. Granting it would also harm society, directly contradicting the constitutional aim of\n\npromoting science and the useful arts.\n\n If the court upholds the Defendants' view, similarly situated companies will likely enjoy\n\nthe same exceptional treatment, including Anthropic, Meta, Google, and a slew of start-ups.\n\nWithout having to pay for some of the most important content they train on while simultaneously\n\nproviding a competing product that serves as an answer engine that can replace the training content,\n\na foreseeable chain of events will likely unfold: plaintiffs will have to cut back on the number of\n\njournalists they employ and the number or quality of stories they publish, local news deserts will\n\nexpand, and relatively expensive and time-consuming investigative journalism will decrease. A\n\nfinding of fair use that does no more than humans to promote science and the useful arts, while\n\nundermining an essential institution of modern society, cannot be squared with copyright\u2019s\n\npurpose.\n\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For these reasons, the court should refuse to grant Defendants exceptional treatment under\n\nthe law. Declaring their use fair use would undermine incentives for creators to keep working\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 28 of 30\n\n\n\n\ntoward the progress of science and the useful arts, and it would establish that AI companies receive\n\nspecial treatment under the law.\n\n\n\n DATED: October 30, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Kylie M. Huff\n Kylie M. Huff\n Alexa Millinger \u2013 S.D.N.Y. Admission Pending\n Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP\n 20 Church Street\n Hartford, CT 06103\n T: 860-725-6200\n F: 860-278-3802\n KHuff@hinckleyallen.com\n AMillinger@hinckleyallen.com\n\n Attorneys for proposed Amici Curiae AI Safety\n Asia, Brian J. A. Boyd, Buddhism & AI\n Initiative, Cara Project, Inc., Charles Camosy,\n David Atkinson, EdTech Law Center PLLC,\n Future of Life Institute, Irreplaceable, John C.\n Havens, No\u0113sis Collaborative, Progressive\n Democrats of America, RadicalxChange\n Foundation, The Tech Oversight Project, Walter\n Scheirer, and Young People\u2019s Alliance\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 29 of 30\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD-COUNT LIMITAION\n\n Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(c), undersigned counsel hereby certifies that this\n\nMemorandum of Law complies with the word count limit specified in the Court\u2019s Order of\n\nAugust 7, 2026 (Dkt. No. 1663) limiting the proposed brief to 6000 words or less, as the brief\n\ncontains 5989 words excluding material exempted by Local Civil Rule 7.1(c). Undersigned\n\ncounsel relied on the word count of the word-processing program used to prepare this document.\n\n\n\n DATED: October 30, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n /s/ Kylie M. Huff\n Kylie M. Huff\n Alexa Millinger (SDNY\n Admission Pending)\n Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP\n 20 Church Street\n Hartford, CT 06103\n T: 860-725-6200\n F: 860-278-3802\n KHuff@hinckleyallen.com\n AMillinger@hinckleyallen.com\n\n Attorneys for proposed Amici\n Curiae AI Safety Asia, Brian J. A.\n Boyd, Buddhism & AI Initiative,\n Cara Project, Inc., Charles\n Camosy, David Atkinson, EdTech\n Law Center PLLC, Future of Life\n Institute, Irreplaceable, John C.\n Havens, No\u0113sis Collaborative,\n Progressive Democrats of\n America, RadicalxChange\n Foundation, The Tech Oversight\n Project, Walter Scheirer, and\n Young People\u2019s Alliance\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\fCase 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1811-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 30 of 30\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATION\n\n I hereby certify that on October 30, 2026, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically\n\nand served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent\n\nby email to all parties by operation of the Court\u2019s electronic filing system or by mail to any\n\ncounsel or self-represented party unable to accept electronic filing, as indicated on the Notice of\n\nElectronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court\u2019s CM/ECF System.\n\n\n\n /s/ Kylie M. Huff\n Kylie M. Huff\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-10-30T16:23:44.085457-07:00","document_number":"54","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127040654985","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A Proposed Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499588330/","id":499588330,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/54/2/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:19:40.461106-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:29:54.765149-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":7,"file_size":199010,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"54","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127040654986","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Supplement Memorandum in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499588331/","id":499588331,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/54/3/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:19:40.481083-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:29:54.781280-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":106245,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"54","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"127040654987","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T16:11:08.289435-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T16:11:08.297490-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"17:46:40","entry_number":54,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":273,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483764617/","id":483764617,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499587101/","id":499587101,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/55/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:10:59.500811-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T16:10:59.514262-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"55","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040655063","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499603675/","id":499603675,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/55/1/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T20:33:50.425479-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T20:33:50.425495-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":552171,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"55","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127040655064","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit - Declaration in Support","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499603679/","id":499603679,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/55/2/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T20:33:50.445914-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T20:33:50.445932-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":427813,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"55","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127040655065","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit - CA Certificate of Good Standing","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499603681/","id":499603681,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/55/3/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T20:33:50.462119-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T20:33:50.462134-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":136950,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"55","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"127040655066","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit - Proposed Order for Admission Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T16:10:59.472629-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T16:10:59.481948-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"17:50:03","entry_number":55,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":285,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483764500/","id":483764500,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499586984/","id":499586984,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/56/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:10:36.846977-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T16:23:41.166994-07:00","sha1":"8ac5db518015630bb131aeaafe4e55a683c7550e","page_count":5,"file_size":254965,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598.56.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1814 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati\n Professional Corporation\n 31 West 52nd Street\n Fifth Floor\n New York, New York 10019-6118\n O: 212.999.5800\n F: 866.974.7329\n\n\n\nERIC NIKOLAIDES\nInternet: ENIKOLAIDES@wsgr.com\nDirect dial: (646) 335-4728\n\n\n\n October 30, 2026\n\n\nVIA ECF\n\nThe Honorable Sidney H. Stein\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n Re: In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation,\n No. 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW\n This Document Relates To: All Actions\n\n Motion of Computer and Communications Industry Association,\n NetChoice, LLC, and TechNet for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae\n\n\nDear Judge Stein:\n\nPursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(e) and the Court\u2019s Order of August 7, 2026 (ECF No.\n1663), the Computer and Communications Industry Association (\u201cCCIA\u201d), NetChoice,\nLLC (\u201cNetChoice\u201d), and TechNet (collectively, \u201cAmici\u201d) respectfully move for leave to\nfile the attached brief as amici curiae (Exhibit A). The proposed brief supports\nDefendants\u2019 motions for summary judgment and opposes Plaintiffs\u2019 summary judgment\nmotions. See ECF Nos. 1690, 1698, 1720, 1753 (Defendants\u2019 memoranda); ECF Nos.\n1709, 1881 (Plaintiffs\u2019 memoranda).\n\nI. Interests of Amici1\n\nAmici represent a diverse group of stakeholders who provide unique and valuable\ninsights in technology-related legal disputes. They regularly submit public comments,\n\n\n 1 No counsel for a party authored this motion or the attached brief in whole or in part,\n\nand no party or counsel for a party made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or\nsubmission of this motion or the attached brief. No person or entity other than Amici, their\nmembers, or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of\n\n\n AUSTIN BOSTON BOULDER BRUSSELS HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO\n SALT LAKE CITY SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, DC WILMINGTON, DE\n\f Case 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1814 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\nThe Honorable Sidney H. Stein\nOctober 30, 2026\nPage 2\n\n\nprovide testimony, and publish articles and reports on issues involving artificial\nintelligence and copyright.2 They have also submitted multiple amicus briefs in litigation\ninvolving artificial intelligence, including briefs addressing the application of the fair use\ndoctrine to AI training.3 Amici seek leave to submit the attached brief because the fair\n\n\n\nthis motion or the attached brief. Although OpenAI is a member of NetChoice and TechNet, it\ndid not make a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this motion or the\nattached brief.\n 2 See, e.g., Comments of Computer & Communications Industry Association, In re\n\nAccelerating the American Scientific Enterprise, Office of Science and Technology Policy Dkt.\nNo. OSTP-TECH-2025-0100 (Dec. 24, 2025), https://ccianet.org/wp-\ncontent/uploads/2025/12/CCIA-Comments-to-OSTP-on-Accelerating-the-American-Scientific-\nEnterprise.pdf; CCIA 2025 State Landscape: Artificial Intelligence,\nhttps://ccianet.org/library/ccia-2025-ai-landscape/; Testimony of Carl Szabo, Vice President &\nGeneral Counsel, NetChoice, before the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee (June 4,\n2024), https://netchoice.org/netchoice-testimony-before-texas-senate-judiciary-committee-on-\nai-generated-child-sexual-abuse-material/; Zoey Foster, The Transformative Power of AI:\nProviding More Resources for People With Developmental Disabilities (Mar. 19, 2026),\nhttps://netchoice.org/the-transformative-power-of-ai-providing-more-resources-for-people-\nwith-developmental-disabilities/; Comments of TechNet, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright,\nU.S. Copyright Office Dkt. No. 2023-6 (Oct. 30, 2023), https://www.technet.org/wp-\ncontent/uploads/2023/10/TechNet-USCO-NOI-AI-Response.pdf; Comments of Computer &\nCommunications Industry Association, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, U.S. Copyright\nOffice Dkt. No. 2023-6 (Oct. 30, 2023).\n 3 See, e.g., Brief of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, A.I.\n\nProgress, Inc., and NetChoice, LLC as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants' Motion for\nSummary Judgment, In re Mosaic LLM Litig., No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB, ECF No. 448-1 (N.D.\nCal. Aug. 27, 2026); Brief of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, A.I.\nProgress, Inc., and NetChoice, LLC as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant Anthropic PBC\u2019s\nMotion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Publishers\u2019 Motion for Partial Summary\nJudgment, Concord Music Grp., Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:24-cv-03811-EKL, ECF No. 711-1\n(N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2026); Brief of TechNet, AI Progress, Computer & Communications Industry\nAssociation, Consumer Technology Association, and Engine Advocacy as Amici Curiae and in\nSupport of Petitioner, Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 25-4843 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025); Brief Amici\nCuriae of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Chamber of Progress, and\nNetChoice in Support of Appellant ROSS Intelligence, Inc. and Reversal, Thomson Reuters\nEnterprise Centre GmbH v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., No. 25-2153 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2025); Brief\nof Amici Curiae Industry Trade Associations in Support of Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for a Preliminary\nInjunction, Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War, No. 3:26-cv-01996, ECF No. 72 (N.D.\nCal. Mar. 13, 2026).\n\f Case 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1814 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\nThe Honorable Sidney H. Stein\nOctober 30, 2026\nPage 3\n\n\nuse of copyrighted works in training generative AI models is important to the developers\nand users of generative AI tools and to the public at large.\n\nCCIA is an international, not-for-profit association representing a broad cross-section of\ncommunications, technology, and Internet industry firms that collectively employ more\nthan 1.6 million workers, invest more than $100 billion in research and development,\nand contribute trillions of dollars in productivity to the global economy. For more than\n50 years, CCIA has promoted open markets, open systems, and open networks. CCIA\nregularly files amicus briefs to promote balanced copyright policies that reward, rather\nthan inhibit, innovation. A list of CCIA members is available at\nhttps://ccianet.org/about/members/.\n\nNetChoice is a national trade association of online businesses that share the goal of\npromoting free enterprise and free expression on the Internet. For over two decades,\nNetChoice has worked to ensure the Internet remains innovative and free. NetChoice\nadvocates on behalf of its membership by, among other things, participating in litigation\ninvolving issues of vital concern to the online community and by filing amicus curiae\nbriefs in cases that, like this one, could shape the way important technological\ninnovations develop. Several of NetChoice\u2019s members develop and provide generative AI\napplications and services. A list of NetChoice members is available at\nhttps://netchoice.org/about/#association-members.\n\nTechNet is the national, bipartisan network of technology chief executive officers and\nsenior executives that promotes the growth of the innovation economy by advocating a\ntargeted policy agenda at the federal and 50-state level. TechNet\u2019s diverse membership\nincludes dynamic American businesses ranging from startups to the most iconic\ncompanies in the world and represents over five million employees and countless\ncustomers in the fields of information technology, artificial intelligence, e-commerce,\nthe sharing and gig economies, advanced energy, transportation, cybersecurity, venture\ncapital, and finance. TechNet\u2019s membership includes companies that develop and offer\ngenerative AI products and services. TechNet supports policies that encourage a balance\nbetween honoring creators\u2019 rights and ensuring continued progress in groundbreaking\ntechnologies. TechNet has participated in federal policy proceedings addressing\nartificial intelligence and copyright, including the U.S. Copyright Office\u2019s study of those\nissues. A list of TechNet members is available at https://www.technet.org/our-\nstory/members/.\n\nII. The Proposed Brief Will Assist the Court\n\nA district court has broad discretion to decide whether to accept an amicus curiae brief.\nSee City of New York v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 789, 791 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); United\n\f Case 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1814 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\nThe Honorable Sidney H. Stein\nOctober 30, 2026\nPage 4\n\n\nStates v. Ahmed, 788 F. Supp. 196, 198 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Courts in this Circuit have\ngranted leave where the amicus \u201chas unique information or perspective that can help the\ncourt\u201d and its brief would \u201chelp[] ensure that there has been a complete and plenary\npresentation of difficult issues so that the court may reach a proper decision.\u201d C&A\nCarbone, Inc. v. Cnty. of Rockland, No. 08-cv-6459 (ER), 2014 WL 1202699, at *3-4\n(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2014) (cleaned up); see also Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. United\nHealth Grp., Inc., 584 F. Supp. 2d 489, 497 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); Weininger v. Castro, 418\nF. Supp. 2d 553, 554-55 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (granting leave where the issues were \u201clikely to\nengender reasonable expressions of public interest from a universe much larger than the\nadversaries in the instant action\u201d). Leave is warranted here for four reasons.\n\nFirst, the Court has invited amicus submissions in connection with the pending\nsummary judgment motions and has set the procedures and word limit for them. ECF\nNo. 1663. Amici have complied: this motion includes the proposed brief, which contains\n5,995 words, within the Court\u2019s 6,000-word limit.\n\nSecond, whether training generative AI models on copyrighted works is fair use matters\nfar beyond the parties to these cases. The answer will affect the companies that develop\ngenerative AI models, the much larger universe of businesses and individuals that build\non and use those models, and the public that benefits from the resulting tools. Amici\u2019s\nmembers span that ecosystem, and Amici can therefore offer the Court an industry-wide\nperspective on how generative AI tools are developed and used that no single party is\npositioned to provide.\n\nThird, the proposed brief explains and amplifies issues the parties have joined rather\nthan repeating their arguments. It focuses on three points: (1) the purpose of the\nProgress Clause, the Copyright Act, and the fair use doctrine is to promote the kind of\nprogress that generative AI enables, not to protect incumbent business models\u2014a\nresponse to the objection, which Plaintiffs press here, that AI training is antithetical to\nthe purposes of fair use because AI output lacks human authorship; (2) training a\ngenerative AI model is a transformative use, consistent with Authors Guild v. Google,\nInc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015), and Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87\n(2d Cir. 2014); and (3) the market-dilution and licensing theories of harm advanced by\nboth the News Plaintiffs and the Class Plaintiffs misconstrue the fourth fair use factor\nand are antithetical to the purposes of copyright: competition from new, non-infringing\nworks is not cognizable harm, and a copyright owner cannot create a cognizable market\nby demanding licenses for a transformative use.\n\nFourth, a district court deciding the same fair use questions in another generative AI\ncase granted leave to CCIA and NetChoice, among other amici. See Order Granting\nLeave to File Briefs, Concord Music Grp., Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 5:24-cv-03811-\n\f Case 1:23-cv-11195-SHS-OTW Document 1814 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\nThe Honorable Sidney H. Stein\nOctober 30, 2026\nPage 5\n\n\nEKL, ECF No. 724 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2026); see also Minute Entry, id., ECF No. 257\n(N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2024) (granting NetChoice leave at the preliminary-injunction stage).\n\nIII. Conclusion\n\nFor these reasons, Amici respectfully request that the Court grant leave to file the\nattached brief (Exhibit A).\n\n Respectfully Submitted,\n\n WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI\n Professional Corporation\n\n /s/ Eric K. Nikolaides\n Eric K. Nikolaides\n Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.\n 31 West 52nd Street, Fifth Floor\n New York, New York 10019-6118\n Telephone: (212) 999-5800\n Email: enikolaides@wsgr.com\n\n Paul N. Harold (pro hac vice pending)\n Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.\n 1700 K Street NW\n Washington, DC 20006\n Telephone: (202) 973-8800\n Email: pharold@wsgr.com\n\n Counsel for Amici Curiae Computer and\n Communications Industry Association,\n NetChoice, LLC, and TechNet\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-10-30T16:23:41.162855-07:00","document_number":"56","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040655359","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"File Amicus Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499588257/","id":499588257,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/56/1/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:19:09.814403-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:31:19.454951-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":26,"file_size":129989,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"56","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"127040655360","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A - Amicus Curiae Br. of CCIA, NetChoice, and TechNet","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499588258/","id":499588258,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/56/2/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:19:09.838817-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T06:31:19.467648-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":5356,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"56","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"127040655361","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order ([Proposed] Order)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T16:10:36.822866-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T16:10:36.830031-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"18:19:00","entry_number":56,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":287,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483764443/","id":483764443,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499586921/","id":499586921,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/57/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T16:10:24.413655-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T17:48:33.536673-07:00","sha1":"ea728a1337d03f9a7f0a50f52e88c2c6a60bdc38","page_count":7,"file_size":186319,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598.57.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW Document 2430 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n IN RE:\n MDL No. 1:25-md-03143 (SHS) (OTW)\n OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT\n INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION\n Hon. Sidney H. Stein\n This Document Relates To: All Cases\n\n\n\n MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE\n BRIEF AS AMICI CURIAE BY HUMAN CONSENT FOUNDATION, CREATIVE\n ARTISTS AGENCY, LLC, MUSIC ARTISTS COALITION, NATIONAL\n ASSOCIATION OF VOICE ACTORS, INC., WRITER, INC., CREATORS\n COALITION ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, CATE BLANCHETT, NICK\n HEXUM & STEVEN SODERBERGH\n\n The proposed amici curiae, Human Consent Foundation (\u201cHCF\u201d), Creative Artists\n\nAgency, LLC (\u201cCAA\u201d), Music Artists Coalition (\u201cMAC\u201d), National Association of Voice Actors,\n\nInc. (\u201cNAVA\u201d), Writer, Inc. (\u201cWRITER\u201d), Creators Coalition on Artificial Intelligence (\u201cCCAI\u201d),\n\nCate Blanchett, Nick Hexum, and Steven Soderbergh (collectively, \u201cAmici\u201d) respectfully submit\n\nthis Memorandum of Law in support of their motion for leave to file the accompanying amicus\n\nbrief. The proposed brief addresses a discrete issue raised by Defendants\u2019 motions for summary\n\njudgment: the practical feasibility of identifying, clearing, and licensing rights for the use of\n\ncreative works in artificial-intelligence systems. Drawing on their experience with creative-rights\n\nlicensing, representation, and machine-readable consent infrastructure, the proposed Amici offer\n\ninformation and perspective concerning the operational realities of the AI data licensing market\n\nthat may assist the Court in evaluating the parties\u2019 arguments.\n\nI. INTEREST OF THE PROPOSED AMICI CURIAE\n\n HCF is a nonprofit organization that \u201cdevelops and maintains the Human Consent\n\nStandard (\u201cHCS\u201d), an openly published, XML-based technical specification developed with\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW Document 2430 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\n\nindustry stakeholders that allows individuals and rights holders to identify how artificial\n\nintelligence systems may process their creative works and likenesses.1 To operationalize this\n\nstandard, HCF runs the Human Consent Registry, the centralized infrastructure where these\n\nmachine-readable declarations are published and made discoverable and queryable to AI systems\n\nat web scale.2\n\n HCF does not license works, collect royalties, operate a marketplace, or sell data.3 Rather,\n\nit develops and maintains technical infrastructure intended to facilitate the communication of rights\n\nholders\u2019 permissions concerning AI uses. HCF has no commercial interest in the outcome of this\n\nlitigation.\n\n CAA is a talent agency serving clients across film, television, music, sports, brands, and\n\nCreator Economy.4 Through its representation of creators and rights holders, CAA has experience\n\nwith the licensing and clearance of creative rights, including issues arising from emerging\n\ntechnologies. CAA has no commercial interest in the outcome of this litigation.\n\n MAC advocates for artists in the music industry.5 MAC focuses on \u201cprotecting the rights,\n\nfinancial security, and creative freedoms of musicians.\u201d6 Its work gives MAC a perspective on\n\n\n\n1\n See Human Consent Found., Human Consent Standard 1.0 Draft Specification \u00a7\u00a7 1\u20133 (Draft, Aug. 8,\n2026), https://humanconsent.org/hcs (last visited Oct. 28, 2026); see also Mondaq, A New Framework for\nAI Permissions in Entertainment (July 14, 2026),\nhttps://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trademark/1817008/a-new-framework-for-ai-permissions-in-\nentertainment-rsl-medias-human-consent-standard (describing HCS as a machine-readable protocol\ncovering creative works, identity, likeness, voice, characters, and marks).\n2\n See Human Consent Found., supra note 2, \u00a7\u00a7 2, 3.1.1 (defining \u201cRegistry\u201d and \u201cRegistry-Wide Default\nPolicies\u201d); see also JD Supra, RSL Media\u2019s Human Consent Standard (June 16, 2026),\nhttps://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/rsl-media-s-human-consent-standard-a-5809993 (describing the free\npublic registry that AI platforms can query).\n3\n See Human Consent Found., supra note 2, \u00a7 1.\n4\n See About Us, Creative Artists Agency, https://www.caa.com/about-us (last visited Oct. 28, 2026).\n5\n See About, Music Artists Coal., https://www.musicartistscoalition.com/about (last visited Oct. 28, 2026).\n6\n Id.\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW Document 2430 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 7\n\n\n\n\nthe rights and licensing interests of music creators affected by emerging uses of creative works.\n\nMAC has no commercial interest in the outcome of this litigation.\n\n NAVA is \u201ca social impact non-profit association created to advocate and promote the\n\nadvancement of the voice acting industry through action, education, inclusion, and benefits.\u201d7 It\n\nrepresents voice actors in approximately 47 states and 22 countries. NAVA brings the perspective\n\nof professional voice actors whose industry is actively being implicated by emerging AI\n\ntechnologies. NAVA has no commercial interest in the outcome of this litigation.\n\n WRITER is an enterprise AI platform built for the world\u2019s leading marketing and revenue\n\nteams.8 It has developed and built its own family of models, Palmyra, which has informed its\n\nperspective on how to respect third party rights while likewise creating highly performant models.\n\nWRITER has no commercial interest in the outcome of this litigation.\n\n CCAI is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization founded by film, television and digital content\n\nprofessionals to address the effects of artificial intelligence on creative work.9 More than 6,000\n\ncreators have signed on to its mission, across eleven profession groups ranging from writers,\n\nperformers and directors to post-production, visual effects, craft workers, studio staff and\n\nindependent creators.10 CCAI is technology-agnostic. It takes no position for or against AI and\n\ninstead works to establish shared, community-led standards for its use in creative industries. CCAI\n\nhas no commercial interest in the outcome of this litigation.\n\n Cate Blanchett is an actor and producer, a co-founder of HCF, and a co-author of the\n\n\n\n\n7\n See Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n of Actors, https://navavoices.org/ (last visited Oct. 28, 2026).\n8\n See About, Writer, https://writer.com/company/about/ (last visited Oct. 28, 2026).\n9\n See Who We Are, Creators Coalition on A.I., https://www.creatorscoalitionai.com/#who-we-are (last\nvisited Oct. 28, 2026).\n10\n See id.\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW Document 2430 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 7\n\n\n\n\nHCS.11 Her experience as both a creator and producer provides a practical perspective on consent\n\nand rights-clearance practices in the creative industries. She has no commercial interest in the\n\noutcome of this litigation.\n\n Nick Hexum is a singer, songwriter and producer, and a co-author of the HCS.12 His work\n\nas both a creator and with HCF provides a perspective on the development of consent infrastructure\n\nfor creative works in the AI context. He has no commercial interest in the outcome of this litigation.\n\n Steven Soderbergh is a filmmaker, cinematographer and editor, and a founding board\n\nmember of HCF.13 His experience in filmmaking and production provides a practical perspective\n\non rights clearance and licensing in the creative industries. He has no commercial interest in the\n\noutcome of this litigation.\n\nII. THE PROPOSED BRIEF SATISFIES THE STANDARD FOR LEAVE\n\n \u201c[T]he decision to grant leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is in the firm discretion of the\n\ncourt.\u201d In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 2022 WL 17326181, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29,\n\n2022). In exercising that discretion, the Southern District of New York looks to Rule 29 of the\n\nFederal Rules of Appellate Procedure for guidance and considers whether the proposed amicus\n\nbrief \u201cserves a laudable, rather than distractive, purpose.\u201d Id. An amicus brief serves such a\n\npurpose and should be allowed when \u201cthe amicus has unique information or perspective that can\n\nhelp the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.\u201d Id. (quoting\n\nRyan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm\u2019n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997)); see Auto.\n\nClub of N.Y., Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2011 WL 5865296, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2011)\n\n(granting residents of Staten Island who regularly used Port Authority bridges leave to file amicus\n\n11\n See Human Consent Found., supra note 2.\n12\n See id.\n13\n See id.\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW Document 2430 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 7\n\n\n\n\nbrief in case involving toll increases); see also Dkt. No. 440. Proposed amici curiae meet that\n\nstandard.\n\n A. The Proposed Amici Curiae Have Unique Information or Perspective\n\n Defendants\u2019 motions for summary judgment raise questions concerning whether rights for\n\nAI data ingestion, training, and grounding can practically be identified, cleared, and licensed at\n\nscale, and whether a functioning market exists for those uses. The proposed Amici offer\n\ninformation directly relevant to those questions from perspectives distinct from those of the parties.\n\n Collectively, the proposed Amici have experience with the infrastructure through which\n\ncreative rights are identified, represented, licensed, and cleared; the development of machine-\n\nreadable mechanisms for communicating consent and permissions; and the practical operation of\n\nemerging markets involving creative works and AI. Their proposed brief places those\n\ndevelopments in the broader context of established rights-clearance practices in the creative\n\nindustries and describes technological and market mechanisms relevant to the feasibility of\n\nlicensing at scale.\n\n That perspective may assist the Court in evaluating the factual premises underlying the\n\nparties\u2019 arguments without requiring the proposed Amici to take a position on how those arguments\n\nultimately should be resolved. The proposed brief therefore provides precisely the type of \u201cunique\n\ninformation or perspective\u201d that warrants amicus participation. In re Terrorist Attacks, 2022 WL\n\n17326181, at *2.\n\n B. The Proposed Brief Is Not Duplicative and Advocates No Outcome\n\n The proposed brief will not duplicate the parties\u2019 advocacy. Rather than address the\n\nultimate merits of Plaintiffs\u2019 or Defendants\u2019 motions, the proposed Amici offer information\n\nconcerning licensing practices, market infrastructure, and technological mechanisms relevant to\n\nissues raised in the parties\u2019 summary-judgment briefing. The proposed brief expressly states that\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW Document 2430 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 7\n\n\n\n\nthe Amici take no position on the ultimate disposition of those motions. Its purpose is thus limited:\n\nto provide the Court with industry and operational context that the parties, litigating their\n\nrespective positions, may not otherwise provide.\n\nIII. THE PROPOSED BRIEF COMPLIES WITH THE COURT\u2019S ORDER.\n\n The proposed brief also complies with the requirements governing its submission. It\n\ncontains fewer than 6,000 words, as required by Dkt. No. 1663, includes the certification required\n\nby Local Civil Rule 7.1(c), and complies with Judge Sidney H. Stein\u2019s Individual Practices\n\ngoverning memoranda of law.\n\n In addition, no party or party\u2019s counsel authored the proposed brief in whole or in part, and\n\nno party, party\u2019s counsel, or person other than the proposed Amici contributed money intended to\n\nfund the preparation or submission of the brief.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the Amici leave to file the proposed\n\nbrief attached as Exhibit A to the Notice of Motion.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:25-md-03143-SHS-OTW Document 2430 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 7\n\n\n\nDated: October 30, 2026\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n /s/ Marc E. Ackerman\n Marc E. Ackerman (NY #2540136)\n BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC\n 230 Park Avenue\n 3rd Floor, West Office 417\n New York, NY 10169\n 646-502-9678\n marc.ackerman@bassberry.com\n\n\n Kathryn Hannen Walker (TN #20794)\n (pro hac vice pending)\n Robert L. Brewer (TN #020640)\n (pro hac vice pending)\n BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC\n 21 Platform Way South, Suite 3500\n Nashville, TN 37203\n (615) 742-6200\n kwalker@bassberry.com\n rbrewer@bassberry.com\n\n Attorneys for [Proposed] Amici Curiae Human\n Consent Foundation, Creative Artists Agency, Music\n Artists Coalition, National Association of Voice\n Actors, Inc., Writer, Inc., Creators Coalition on\n Artificial Intelligence, Cate Blanchett, Nick Hexum,\n and Steven Soderbergh\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-30T17:48:33.532203-07:00","document_number":"57","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040655534","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T16:10:24.389170-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T16:10:24.396350-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"18:26:17","entry_number":57,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":289,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483743996/","id":483743996,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74652896/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499566109/","id":499566109,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/74652896/48/sullivan-v-openai-foundation/","date_created":"2026-10-30T14:20:33.091824-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:17:21.353835-07:00","sha1":"536cbbd42ddd212855bcbfc45aca9573bb928da3","page_count":1,"file_size":176492,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598/gov.uscourts.nysd.670598.48.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:23-cv-08292-SHS-OTW Document 1488 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 1\nAO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n for the\n Southern District\n __________ DistrictofofNew York\n __________\n\n\n )\n Plaintiff )\n v. ) Case No.\n )\n Defendant )\n\n APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL\n\nTo: The clerk of court and all parties of record\n\n I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:\n\n .\n\n\nDate: \u0012V\u0012\u0003&DQGLFH\u0003-\u0011\u0003