FOLLOW US

A coalition of artists and writers who allege Google unlawfully used their copyrighted works to train its generative artificial intelligence models has asked a California federal judge to grant class certification, formally allowing them to pursue the case on behalf of a broader group of creators.

In a motion filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs proposed creating two main classes — one for authors whose books were used lawfully obtained but improperly used in AI training, and a subclass for those whose works were pirated. Two additional proposed subclasses were redacted from the filing. The plaintiffs also asked to form a separate class of visual artists whose images were allegedly used without authorization, excluding any works for which Google had obtained licensing rights.

Plaintiffs: “Google Needed Vast Quantities of Creative Work”

According to the motion, the lawsuit centers solely on copyright violations, arguing that Google copied and ingested artistic and literary works on a massive scale to build and train its AI systems in order to compete with other major technology firms.

“At trial, plaintiffs and all class members will rely on the same common body of evidence to prove their copyright claim,” the motion stated. “Each element — ownership of a valid copyright and that Google copied plaintiff’s original expression — will be proven by common evidence. Each element turns on Google’s conduct, not the conduct of any individual class member.”

The plaintiffs claim they will show Google’s deliberate ingestion and improper use of copyrighted material, though portions of the evidence supporting that claim were redacted in the filing.

Common Legal Questions and Fair Use Defense

The artists and writers argue that the requirements for class certification are met, citing numerosity (the large number of affected creators) and commonality, as the same core legal questions apply to all members.

Those questions include whether:

• Google copied or used copyrighted works without authorization;

• The copying was done as part of AI model training; and

• Google’s actions can be defended as fair use under copyright law.

The plaintiffs maintain that the fair use defense can be resolved through common proof applicable to the entire class.

“Whether fair use is an available defense is a common question,” the motion said. “Courts have routinely rejected fair use for acquiring unauthorized copies to avoid payment obligations. The court should do the same here.”

The filing cited parallels to a recent case involving Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, where similar copyright claims advanced to trial after a judge certified the class. That case ultimately settled for $1.5 billion earlier this year.

Representation and Next Steps

Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The artists and writers are represented by:

• Lesley Weaver, Anne Davis, Joshua Samra, and Gregory Mullens of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP;

• Joseph Saveri, Cardo Zirpoli, Christopher Young, Elissa Buchanan, Evan Creutz, and Aaron Cera of Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP;

• Brian Clark, Laura Matson, Arielle Wagner, Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, and Stephen Teti of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP;

• Ryan Clarkson, Yana Hart, and Mark Richards of Clarkson Law Firm PC; and

• Matthew Butterick of Butterick Law.

Google is represented by David Kramer, Eric Tuttle, Jeremy Auster, Kelly Knoll, Madison Welsh, Maura Rees, Paul Sampson, and Qifan Huang of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, along with Michael Kwun and Nicholas Roethlisberger of Kwun Bhansali Lazarus LLP.

The case is In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Case No. 5:23-cv-03440, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.