Latest news with #Plaintiffs'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Disney and NBCUniversal Sue AI Company Midjourney Over Copyright Violations
The Walt Disney Co. and NBCUniversal have filed a joint lawsuit against AI company Midjourney citing alleged copyright violations. Midjourney is an image-generating service that, according to the suit, could 'function as a virtual vending machine' to replicate copyrighted characters. This is the first major legal action studios have taken against an AI company. Both studios are seeking an undisclosed amount of maximum statutory damages. The legal filing is here. More from IndieWire Patricia Arquette Took Her Directorial Debut All the Way to TIFF - Then, She Had to Recut It Chanel Returns to New York City for Its Star-Studded 18th Annual Tribeca Artists Dinner 'By helping itself to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works, and then distributing images (and soon videos) that blatantly incorporate and copy Disney's and Universal's famous characters — without investing a penny in their creation — Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism,' the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, states. 'Piracy is piracy, and whether an infringing image or video is made with AI or another technology does not make it any less infringing.' One example of possible copyright infringement included in the lawsuit involves Disney's 'Star Wars' properties. Per the filing, if a Midjourney user asks the service to create an image of Darth Vader in a scene, 'Midjourney obliges by generating and displaying a high quality, downloadable image featuring Disney's copyrighted Darth Vader character.' And since Midjourney is about to launch a new video service feature, the company could start making videos with these copyrighted characters, or, as the suit states, 'Midjourney is very likely already infringing Plaintiffs' copyrighted works.' Both Walt Disney Co. and NBCUniversal claim that Midjourney is opting not to implement protective measures to prevent users from generating copyright-infringing images. Allegedly, the studios asked Midjourney to take action but the company instead opted to 'continue to release new versions of its Image Service, which, according to Midjourney's founder and CEO, have even higher quality infringing images.' Horacio Gutierrez, the senior executive vice president and chief legal and compliance officer for Disney, said in a statement, 'Our world-class IP is built on decades of financial investment, creativity and innovation—investments only made possible by the incentives embodied in copyright law that give creators the exclusive right to profit from their works. We are bullish on the promise of AI technology and optimistic about how it can be used responsibly as a tool to further human creativity. But piracy is piracy, and the fact that it's done by an AI company does not make it any less infringing.' Kim Harris, the executive vice president and general counsel of NBCU, added, 'Creativity is the cornerstone of our business. We are bringing this action today to protect the hard work of all the artists whose work entertains and inspires us and the significant investment we make in our content. Theft is theft regardless of the technology used, and this action involves blatant infringement of our copyrights.' The Motion Picture Association has not changed its preexisting law against copyrighting and piracy since the rise of AI. In 2023, legal representatives for the MPA said that 'at present, there is no reason to conclude that these existing doctrines and principles will be inadequate to provide courts and the Copyright Office with the tools they need to answer AI-related questions as and when they arise. At the current time, however, there is no need for legislation or special rules to apply copyright law in the context of AI.' The MPA Copyright Office did not find distinguishing differences between generative AI such as Midjourney and the use of post-production AI tools, much of which were used in the recent 2024 Oscar nominees such as 'The Brutalist' and 'A Complete Unknown.'Best of IndieWire Guillermo del Toro's Favorite Movies: 56 Films the Director Wants You to See 'Song of the South': 14 Things to Know About Disney's Most Controversial Movie Nicolas Winding Refn's Favorite Films: 37 Movies the Director Wants You to See
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Ex-‘Doctor Odyssey' Crew Members Sue Disney, Fox Claiming Sexual Harassment And Wrongful Termination
Three former members of the props department on ABC's medical drama Doctor Odyssey filed a lawsuit Friday against the network's parent company Disney and producer 20th Television's parent Fox, alleging they were subject to sexual harassment on the set of the series and eventually retaliated against and terminated when they complained about it. The suit, filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court, says the plaintiffs — Caroline Mack, Alicia Haverland and Ava Steinbrenner — were hired in late spring/early summer 2024 to work in the new series' props department. The defendants then hired Tammie Patton as Prop Master and her husband Tyler Patton as Assistant Prop Master who supervised and directed the plaintiffs in their work. More from Deadline 'Doctor Odyssey' Finale Upbeat With No Hint Of A Future On The High Seas ABC Chief Provides 'Doctor Odyssey' Status Update Marvel Skipping Comic-Con's Hall H This Year The suit claims the props department 'was an unlawful den of sexual harassment and retaliation,' and that the plaintiffs were subject to 'an an unchecked campaign of sexual harassment for months' by 'Taylor Patton and his male buddies.' The behavior cited in the lawsuit (read it here) allegedly included 'sexual jokes, innuendos, comments, sexual gestures and images, and unwanted touching including, but not limited to: (i) regularly giving Plaintiffs unwanted, lingering hugs; (ii) touching one of the Plaintiff's thighs; (iii) frequently placing his hands on one of the Plaintiff's lower back; (iv) placing his arms around Plaintiffs' necks and forcing them to 'walk with him;' and (v) openly grabbing a visiting female employee's buttocks on set.' The suit said the plaintiffs eventually went to senior production members to report the misconduct including Tammie Patton, and say they were retaliated against by being forced to do demeaning tasks, and having their jobs threatened. 'Even though Defendants' Human Resources Department and Senior Management assigned to Dr. Odyssey were fully aware of Tyler Patton's inappropriate behavior and the retaliation his wife/Plaintiffs' boss Tammie Patton engaged in, they took no action to prevent it,' says the suit. 'In fact, Defendants' human resources was asleep at the wheel and permitted the frustrated managers/producers on set to handle these conflicts on their own. This led to Plaintiffs suffering additional mistreatment, retaliation, and emotional distress.' In the end, the plaintiffs say that rather than taking action against the alleged harassers, the defendants informed the entire props department in August that it was being terminated. That became effective at the end of September. 'Defendants took the 'easy' way out choosing to eliminate not only the wrongdoers — Prop Master Tammie Patton and Assistant Prop Master Tyler Patton — but all of the remaining employees in the Props Department who had been subject to the wrongdoers' misconduct,' the suit says. As a result, the plaintiffs are claiming wrongful termination in addition to claims of sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. The suit also cites negligent hiring on the part of Disney, Fox and co-defendant Entertainment Partners, saying the defendants knew Tyler Patton had been subject to similar accusations and lawsuit on the set of the mid-2000s Fox medical drama series House. 'Notably, there was some overlap between employees on Dr. Odyssey and employees on the set of House,' the suit says. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial. Doctor Odyssey, from Ryan Murphy and starring Joshua Jackson and Don Johnson, debuted its first season in September and is on the bubble for a Season 2 pickup. It was not on ABC's fall 2025 schedule when that was announced earlier this month at the broadcast upfronts. Best of Deadline Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds 'Poker Face' Season 2 Guest Stars: From Katie Holmes To Simon Hellberg 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More
News18
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- News18
Salt-N-Pepa Sue Universal Music Group, Claim Label Is ‘Holding Their Catalogue Hostage'
Last Updated: Salt-N-Pepa are suing Universal Music Group to reclaim their music rights, citing the Copyright Act of 1976. Salt-N-Pepa are drawing a firm line with Universal Music Group (UMG) in a legal showdown over the rights to their iconic music. The pioneering hip-hop duo, known for hits like 'Push It" and 'Shoop," has filed a federal lawsuit in New York, accusing UMG of unlawfully blocking their attempt to reclaim ownership of their master recordings. Cheryl 'Salt" James and Sandra 'Pepa" Denton are invoking the Copyright Act of 1976, which grants artists the ability to regain control over their work decades after signing away their rights. The duo says they exercised this legal right back in 2022 but UMG isn't playing ball. 'Inexplicably, UMG has refused to honor" their request, the lawsuit reads, despite the duo's claim that their early work including their breakout 1986 album Hot, Cool & Vicious and the smash single 'Push It" now falls within the legal window for rights reversion. Their suit also points out that additional recordings, including the wildly successful 1993 album Very Necessary, featuring 'Shoop" and 'Whatta Man," should also revert to them by the end of this year and in 2026. As the standoff escalated, Salt-N-Pepa allege that UMG retaliated by pulling their music from streaming platforms, leaving fans without access to their biggest hits. 'UMG has indicated that it will hold Plaintiffs' rights hostage even if it means tanking the value of Plaintiffs' music catalogue and depriving their fans of access to their work," the lawsuit claims. The duo is now seeking both actual and punitive damages, with the filing stating that the financial losses could 'well exceed $1 million." They're also demanding a court order to officially transfer the rights back to them. UMG has yet to publicly respond, but according to letters included in the lawsuit, the label has expressed a willingness to mediate. Their lawyers, however, argue that the original 1986 contracts didn't directly involve James or Denton, and that the recordings in question qualify as 'works made for hire", a designation that would prevent artists from reclaiming rights. Salt-N-Pepa's attorneys reject that interpretation, saying the contracts clearly show the duo was never hired under that arrangement. The trailblazing pair—who burst onto the scene from Queens, New York, in the mid-'80s—became cultural game-changers. 'Salt-N-Pepa boldly changed the look of rap and hip-hop," their legal team asserts. 'They were not afraid to talk about sex and to share their thoughts about men. Their sound recordings 'Let's Talk About Sex' and 'None of Your Business,' for example, were huge hits. They talked candidly about women's sexuality and empowerment when such topics were frowned upon, heavily criticized, and called taboo." They were the first all-female rap group to win a Grammy in 1995 and received the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2021. Later this year, they'll add another milestone to their career as they're set to be honored with the Musical Influence Award by the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. DJ Spinderella, a key part of Salt-N-Pepa's legacy, is not involved in the lawsuit, as she wasn't part of the original contracts at the center of the case. As Salt-N-Pepa fight to reclaim their artistic legacy, their lawsuit highlights an ongoing struggle many artists face: navigating decades-old contracts to regain control over the music that defined their careers. First Published:
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
EPA denies harm from GGRF freeze in court filing
This story was originally published on Utility Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Utility Dive newsletter. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a motion Wednesday opposing motions for injunctive relief filed by three nonprofits that have had their access to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant money frozen, arguing that their monetary harm does not warrant an injunction and is not irreparable. The nonprofit Climate Fund United, which received a $6.97 billion National Clean Investment Fund grant, was the first to sue over the frozen funds last month, targeting EPA and fund holder Citibank. The Coalition for Green Capital, which received $5 billion from the NCFI, and Power Forward Communities, which received $2 billion from it, have each filed lawsuits against Citibank. EPA argued for the injunction requests filed by each to be denied, as 'an injunction should be denied when Plaintiffs' alleged harms are monetary and may be remedied by damages' and 'in terminating Plaintiffs' grants, EPA has not prohibited or made it unlawful for Plaintiffs (or their subgrantees) to carry out their work.' 'Nor has any other government action,' EPA said. 'The government is not preventing Plaintiffs from providing services; EPA has just terminated the contracts under which the government would provide reimbursement for those services.' In a joint response filed Friday, the three plaintiffs argued that they have already 'demonstrated several forms of irreparable harm, including potentially fatal disruption to Plaintiffs' operations; irreplaceable loss of clients, partnerships, and opportunities; devastating reputational injury; interference with Plaintiffs' missions; and an immediate risk of insolvency for some of the Plaintiffs and their subgrantees.' 'Many of these injuries have already materialized and will worsen if Plaintiffs continue to be deprived of access to their funds,' they said. The plaintiffs argue that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where the case is being heard, has previously held that financial harm can constitute irreparable harm when the existence of a business is threatened — and note that the court previously agreed that the plaintiffs 'will be unable to finance programs they have launched, and they will have to cease operations.' When EPA froze the grant funding, the agency said it did so based on 'financial mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and oversight failures with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund' and has previously told the court that the grant recipients breached their contracts. However, EPA argued in its March 26 motion that the court 'should recognize that EPA retains the ability to end its agreements, whether or not doing so complies with a (contested) for-cause termination provision. Contract law recognizes every party's right to perform or face remedies for breach.' EPA also argued that the contracts no longer legally exist regardless of its reasoning for their termination. 'As another Judge of this Court recently put it: 'When a contract is terminated, even wrongfully, there is no longer a contract — no duty to perform and no right to demand performance … there is only a right to seek and a duty to pay damages caused by the termination … Thus, even a party that lacks the authority to terminate a contract may do so anyway',' EPA said. The plaintiffs argued in their response that EPA 'violated federal law multiple times over' when it froze their funding by violating 'its obligation to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision … its regulations governing when and how a grant may be terminated … federal statutes by trying to eviscerate a program approved by Congress and seeking, without authority, to claw back already-disbursed funds.' Recommended Reading Climate United Fund sues EPA, Citibank over frozen $7B
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
5 transgender service members ask judge to shield them from military ban
Five transgender service members are requesting a judge block the Trump administration from enforcing a policy that bars trans people from serving openly in the military, while a case against the executive action proceeds. A motion filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asks the court to issue a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement on behalf of the five plaintiffs, each of whom 'are currently being subjected to specific adverse treatment,' according to court filings. It asks the court to shield them from the Pentagon's policies effectuating Trump's order, arguing the plaintiffs otherwise face 'immediate and irreparable harm.' Last week, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, an appointee of former President Biden, indefinitely blocked Trump's order on transgender troops, which she said is 'soaked in animus,' from taking effect. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who mocked Reyes on social media following her ruling, said the Pentagon is appealing her decision. According to the latest court filings, three plaintiffs — Jamie Hash, Vera Wolf and Ashley Davis — were removed from active duty and placed on administrative leave because of the order. Another plaintiff, Hunter Marquez, a cadet at the Air Force Academy set to graduate in May, is now required to comply with standards based on his birth sex and excluded from training with other cadets. The fifth plaintiff, Samuel Ahearn, has been told he cannot graduate from Officer Candidate School despite meeting the requirements. Ahearn is instead being held in the Talent Management Group, a designation for officer candidates who don't meet graduation standards, 'based solely on his transgender status,' according to the motion filed by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the law firms Wardenski P.C. and Kropf Moseley. The Trump administration, according to the plaintiffs' legal team, 'will not suffer any harm if this Court issues a temporary restraining order. A temporary restraining order would simply maintain the status quo in place prior to the issuance of the Military Ban.' 'By contrast, allowing the continued enforcement of the Military Ban brands Plaintiffs as less capable and worthy of enlisting or serving in the Armed Forces solely because of their transgender status and jeopardizes Plaintiffs' prospects for career advancement by preventing them from performing their duties and making it impossible to meet goals required for advancement,' the motion states. 'The balance of equities thus tips sharply in Plaintiffs' favor.' The lawsuit comes one day after a federal judge in New Jersey blocked the military from separating two transgender airmen under Trump's order. U.S. District Judge Christine O'Hearn, another Biden appointee, wrote in the order that the pair 'have exemplary service records' and 'face severe personal and professional harm absent a preliminary injunction.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
