Try the Most Accurate AI Detector on the Market
Our patented AI checker is the most accurate detector on the market! Don't believe us? Try it for yourself!
Keyword density helper – This tool comes with a built-in keyword density helper in some ways similar to the likes of SurferSEO or MarketMuse the difference being, ours is free! This feature shows the user the frequency of single or two word keywords in a document, meaning you can easily compare an article you have written against a competitor to see the major differences in keyword densities. This is especially useful for SEO’s who are looking to optimize their blog content for search engines and improve the blog’s visibility.
File compare – Text comparison between files is a breeze with our tool. Simply select the files you would like to compare, hit “Upload” and our tool will automatically insert the content into the text area, then simply hit “Compare” and let our tool show you where the differences in the text are. By uploading a file, you can still check the keyword density in your content.
Comparing text between URLs is effortless with our tool. Simply paste the URL you would like to get the content from (in our example we use a fantastic blog post by Sherice Jacob found here) hit “Submit URL” and our tool will automatically retrieve the contents of the page and paste it into the text area, then simply click “Compare” and let our tool highlight the difference between the URLs. This feature is especially useful for checking keyword density between pages!
You can also easily compare text by copying and pasting it into each field, as demonstrated below.
Ease of use
Our text compare tool is created with the user in mind, it is designed to be accessible to everyone. Our tool allows users to upload files or enter a URL to extract text, this along with the lightweight design ensures a seamless experience. The interface is simple and straightforward, making it easy for users to compare text and detect the diff.
Multiple text file format support
Our tool provides support for a variety of different text files and microsoft word formats including pdf file, .docx, .odt, .doc, and .txt, giving users the ability to compare text from different sources with ease. This makes it a great solution for students, bloggers, and publishers who are looking for file comparison in different formats.
Protects intellectual property
Our text comparison tool helps you protect your intellectual property and helps prevent plagiarism. This tool provides an accurate comparison of texts, making it easy to ensure that your work is original and not copied from other sources. Our tool is a valuable resource for anyone looking to maintain the originality of their content.
User Data Privacy
Our text compare tool is secure and protects user data privacy. No data is ever saved to the tool, the users’ text is only scanned and pasted into the tool’s text area. This makes certain that users can use our tool with confidence, knowing their data is safe and secure.
Compatibility
Our text comparison tool is designed to work seamlessly across all size devices, ensuring maximum compatibility no matter your screen size. Whether you are using a large desktop monitor, a small laptop, a tablet or a smartphone, this tool adjusts to your screen size. This means that users can compare texts and detect the diff anywhere without the need for specialized hardware or software. This level of accessibility makes it an ideal solution for students or bloggers who value the originality of their work and need to compare text online anywhere at any time.
We looked at all lawsuits occurring against OpenAI and listed them below. In addition to the relevant detail we had a lawyer provide some commentary.
This list will remain updated as an easy-to-reference location for any lawsuits against OpenAI ordered by date (oldest to newest).
None of the information below is legal advice.
Presently, the jurisdictional disputes aimed at OpenAI and its AI model, ChatGPT, remain in their nascent phases, the conclusive determinations of which remain elusive. Also, these legal actions signify the inevitability of burgeoning legal conundrums emblematic of the AI domain in the impending years.
Here's all lawsuits occurring against OpenAI and ChatGPT are given below:
Complaint. Access through: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ziff-davis-v-open-ai-complaint-usdc-northern-delaware.pdf
Ziff Davis alleges that OpenAI copied, removed copyright management information from, and created derivative works based on its copyrighted articles without authorization. According to the complaint, OpenAI not only trained its large language models using Ziff Davis content – but also integrated that content into its chatbot and search responses:
“5. Specifically, Defendant OpenAI has and continues to knowingly… Reproduce, distribute, display, perform, and make available for access, Ziff Davis Works verbatim and in close paraphrase and derivative form (but with CMI removed)” - Ziff Davis v. OpenAI, (Section: Introduction 5. f)
Note: In the above quote, CMI refers to copyright management information
The lawsuit also accuses OpenAI of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing copyright metadata and working around technical controls that Ziff Davis had put in place, like robots.txt files.
“Despite Ziff Davis’s implementation of the robots.txt instructions, OpenAI, using its GPTBot, thereafter continued to actively scrape and make copies of content from Ziff Davis websites without abatement.” - Ziff Davis v. OpenAI, (Section 117)
Ziff Davis claims these actions have hurt its business by reducing any web traffic-related revenue, cutting into potential licensing deals, and falsely attributing content both to and from its brands.
“...by misattributing content by Ziff Davis to other publishers or content by other publishers to Ziff Davis, OpenAI is undermining the public’s perception of Ziff Davis.” Ziff Davis v. OpenAI, (Section 197)
Ziff Davis argues that OpenAI should be held liable for the following claims:
The fact that Ziff Davis is suing OpenAI for copyright infringement isn’t all that surprising, given the growing list of publishers doing the same. However, this complaint does stand out for combining the more traditional copyright claims with trademark dilution, which focuses more on the reputational harm that false attributions can have on trusted brands.
It also includes another element often missing from similar AI-related lawsuits: detailed examples of ChatGPT outputs that appear to reproduce or at least closely paraphrase Ziff Davis’s content. Unlike other media companies that simply allege that OpenAI uses their work in training, Ziff Davis provides concrete examples of how its content pops up in ChatGPT’s responses.
Statement of Claim. Access through: https://litigate.com/assets/uploads/Canadian-News-Media-Companies-v-OpenAI.pdf
This lawsuit alleges copyright infringement against OpenAI by several leading Canadian news outlets, including the Toronto Star, CBC/Radio-Canada, the Globe and Mail, Postmedia, Metroland, and the Canadian Press. As with similar cases against OpenAI in the United States, the plaintiffs claim that OpenAI is committing copyright infringement by using content from the Canadian media to train its products like ChatGPT.
The Canadian news outlets argue that OpenAI is guilty of and liable for the following:
Though it’s the first of its kind in Canada (source), this case from major Canadian news organizations follows similar cases from United States media outlets, such as the Daily News LP and the New York Times. Their claims that OpenAI is using and profiting from their copyrighted content without permission is another example of the growing concern surrounding the unauthorized use of data for AI training purposes.
With more and more copyright infringement-related lawsuits coming at OpenAI from various news media organizations, the outcomes of these cases could set legal precedents for the current grey area between AI and copyright.
Court Order. Access through: https://www.nls.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/ANI_vs_OPEN_AI.pdf
Reuters. Access through:
According to Reuters, ANI alleges that OpenAI committed copyright infringement by using ANI’s copyrighted material to train its large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, without permission. Since OpenAI has entered into content licensing deals with other media organizations (check out our article on OpenAI Partnerships), ANI claims its continued use of its content could lead to unfair competition.
ANI also alleges that ChatGPT credits false information to the news organization. As detailed in a Hindustan Times article, ANI claims that these hallucinations may promote the spread of fake news and damage its reputation as a legitimate news provider. It’s important to note that, according to an article published later by Reuters in January 2025, Hindustan Times is part of a media group that was seeking to join the copyright lawsuit.
ANI’s lawsuit makes the following claims against OpenAI:
(Reuters)
Although it’s the first of its kind in India, ANI’s lawsuit against OpenAI is comparable to other cases where media outlets have raised concerns against the company regarding the unauthorized use of data for AI training purposes. So, it's no surprise that OpenAI’s public position is similar, stating that its models learn from aggregated, publicly available data, which it argues falls under fair use and similar principles.
There have been several key developments to this case since November 2024.
OpenAI’s position. According to Reuters, in January, 2025, OpenAI told the court that removing ChatGPT’s training data would go against its legal obligations in the US.
More specifically, OpenAI argues that it can’t delete its AI training data because it has similar hearings pending in the US. It also asserted that Indian courts don’t have jurisdiction in the matter because its servers are in the US.
New parties seek to join. Reuters reports that in January 2025, the Federation of Indian Publishers, including publishers like Bloomsbury, Penguin Random House, and Rupa Publications, moved to join ANI’s lawsuit.
In a December 2024 filing, the federation claimed its members had evidence that OpenAI trained ChatGPT with their copyrighted material. They argue that unless OpenAI enters licensing agreements with their members, it should delete their content and compensate publishers accordingly.
Additional media plaintiffs. Reuters reports that yet another a group of Indian media outlets, including NDTV, the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), the Indian Express, and the Hindustan Times, sought to join ANI’s legal proceedings against OpenAI in January 2025. They accuse OpenAI of scraping their copyrighted content.
OpenAI’s rebuttal: In a filing dated February 11, 2025, OpenAI denies it "has used any of the applicants' or the DNPA's members' content”, according to Reuters.
Bollywood labels enter the picture: According to Reuters, as of February 2025, some Bollywood music labels, including T-Series, Saregama, and Sony, also expressed their intent to join ANI’s lawsuit against OpenAI. Similar to other plaintiffs, they allege that OpenAI used their recordings without permission to train its AI models.
Jurisdictional review. Later on in February 2025, India Today reports that the Delhi High Court-appointed amicus curiae, Dr. Arul George Scaria, found that the court does indeed have jurisdiction to hear the case. The amicus stated that since users could both access and pay for the service in India, the court should have jurisdiction.
India panel to review copyright laws. As of May 2025, Reuters notes that India has set up a panel to evaluate current copyright laws in the age of AI, and whether they are sufficient.
Complaint. Access through: https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/08/05/musk_v_openai.pdf
Musk’s second lawsuit against OpenAI, Altman, Brockman, et al. alleges civil RICO violations, fraud, false advertising, unfair competition, and breach of contract. He claims they went against the original nonprofit mission outlined in the Founding Agreement by prioritizing profit-driven activities, misleading donors, and misusing their contributions.
What’s interesting is that many of these same charges were filed in February 2024 and then withdrawn in June 2024. However, the addition of fraud and RICO violations kicks this case up a notch.
Now, Musk alleges that OpenAI is also guilty of systematically conspiring to defraud him and other donors by misleading them about its nonprofit mission while still using their funds to support for-profit activities.
Musk’s lawsuit makes the following claims against OpenAI and other defendants:
Since it covers many of the same allegations as his previous withdrawn lawsuit against OpenAI, it may be surprising to see Musk refile the case so soon. However, this may have been a strategic move.
It was his decision to dismiss the case without prejudice that enabled him to refile, which may have given him and his attorneys the extra time they needed to put together a stronger case.
Amended Complaint. On November 14, 2024, Musk’s attorneys filed an amended complaint. This one expands on the claims in the original complaint, with some of the most notable additions including allegations under antitrust laws, self-dealing, and also alleges a conspiracy involving Microsoft’s using OpenAI for monopolistic practices as reported by The Verge.
OpenAI’s latest response. On December 13, 2024, OpenAI published an article in response, Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit, including a detailed timeline of events and screenshots of email correspondence.
Court rejects Musk’s injunction. As reported in Reuters, on March 4, 2025, the court denied Musk’s request for a preliminary injunction to temporarily block OpenAI’s transition into a for-profit model.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Musk’s team didn’t have “the high burden required for a preliminary injunction” in this situation. However, she also noted that she wanted to quickly resolve the issue due to public interest and potential for harm, and agreed to a trial in the fall of this year.
Public response from OpenAI. On March 14, 2025, in a public response titled The court rejects Elon’s latest attempt to slow OpenAI down on its website, OpenAI noted that it welcomes the court’s decision. The company believes “this ruling brings us a big step closer to putting this ridiculous lawsuit to rest”.
OpenAI files a countersuit. According to Reuters, on April 9, 2025, OpenAI filed a countersuit against Musk. Since OpenAI alleges that this isn’t an isolated case, but part of a broader pattern of harassment, it asks that a federal judge stop Musk from continuing any unlawful action against them and hold him responsible for any of the damages that have already occurred.
Former employees back Musk. Reuters also reports that on April 11, 2025, a group of 12 former OpenAI employees filed a legal brief supporting Musk’s case. The group, made up of members who filled both technical and leadership positions within OpenAI, said that its nonprofit nature was key to fulfilling its mission, and a big part of why some people felt inspired to join the company in the first place.
California Attorney General declines to intervene. On April 15, 2025, Reuters reported that the California attorney general’s office said that it wouldn’t join Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, as it didn’t see “how Musk’s action serves the public interest of the state”, instead stating that it seemed he was acting in his own self interest.
In a response letter dated the next day, Musk’s lawyer claims this wasn’t the case. He further went on to say that “Musk does not want to buy OpenAI,” even though the same article highlights that Musk took part in an unsolicited bid to purchase OpenAI for $97 billion in February 2025.
Partial dismissal ruling. In a court order filed on May 1, 2025, reported on by the Courthouse News Service, Judge Gonzalez Rogers made some decisions on the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case. The court allowed Musk’s claims for fraud and breach of implied contract to proceed, but granted dismissal of his RICO claims (with leave to amend) and breach of fiduciary duty claims (although the dismissal was only granted for OpenAI and not Microsoft). She also granted Musk time to amend several of the dismissed claims.
OpenAI evolves its structure for the nonprofit to retain control. On May 5, 2025 just days after the court filing, OpenAI announced that they would be changing the company’s structure to stay nonprofit, “We made the decision for the nonprofit to stay in control after hearing from civic leaders and having discussions with the offices of the Attorneys General of California and Delaware.”
Further, they noted that the for-profit LLC will transition to a “Public Benefit Corporation (PBC)” similar to how X.ai and Anthropic operate, and that the nonprofit would become a large shareholder in the PBC and continue to control it, expanding the nonprofit’s resources as a result.
Case Details:
Parties:
Reference:
This lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by Microsoft Corporation against several newspapers affiliated with Alden Global Inc. Similar to the New York Times case, the claim centers around the use of copyrighted content from these newspapers to train Microsoft's large language models (LLMs).
The newspapers argue that Microsoft, without permission, incorporated their copyrighted content into the training data for their AI models, potentially leading to:
They seek to hold Microsoft liable for the unauthorized use of their work, demanding billions of dollars in damages.
This case follows the lawsuit filed by The New York Times against Microsoft and OpenAI, highlighting the growing concerns among news organizations regarding the potential misuse of their content for AI training.
This lawsuit closely follows the one filed by The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft, highlighting the growing concerns within the news industry regarding the potential misuse of their content for AI training purposes.
Complaint. Access through: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24452289-elon-musk-openai-lawsuit/?responsive=1&title=1
Elon Musk is suing OpenAI, its CEO Sam Altman, and President Greg Brockman for breaching their Founding Agreement to develop AI technology for the public good and not private interests. The lawsuit alleges that by shifting from a nonprofit to a for-profit model, OpenAI is guilty of breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and unfair competition under the California Business and Professions Code.
Musk’s lawsuit outlines the following claims against OpenAI:
As a co-founder of OpenAI in 2015 (source and source), Musk may have all kinds of motivations for filing this lawsuit against the company. Specifically, he has been vocal about the risks associated with artificial general intelligence (AGI) (source).
Withdrawn. On June 11, Musk’s attorneys moved to dismiss this lawsuit without reason. However, they chose to dismiss the case without prejudice, enabling him to refile. He did just that on August 5, 2024.
This complaint alleges that OpenAI, its affiliates, and Microsoft violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing or altering copyright management information from The Intercept’s articles. They further claim that by doing so, OpenAI and Microsoft enabled copyright infringement by OpenAI users — whether the users themselves realized it or not.
The Intercept’s major claims against OpenAI and Microsoft are as follows:
The Raw Story and AlterNet filed a similar suit on the same day (read Case 13 in this article for more details).
Though other news organizations have filed copyright infringement lawsuits against OpenAI and Microsoft, The Intercept claims that the defendants violated the DMCA by removing their copyright information. This makes it similar to Raw Story and AlterNet’s lawsuit filed on the same day by the same law firm.
However, a key difference between the two lawsuits is that The Intercept names both OpenAI and Microsoft as defendants, while Raw Story and AlterNet only list OpenAI.
Like many other plaintiffs on this list, The Intercept wants OpenAI and Microsoft to stop the unauthorized use of their copyrighted works and to secure financial compensation for their previous violations.
Complaint. Access through: https://www.loevy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Raw-Story-v.-OpenAI-Complaint-Filed.pdf
Raw Story and AlterNet’s lawsuit alleges that OpenAI violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing copyright management information from their original, copyrighted works and using the altered versions to train their AI models without permission.
Raw Story and AlterNet’s major claims against OpenAI in this case include:
Although similar cases against OpenAI focus on copyright infringement, Raw Story and AlterNet’s lawsuit is all about DMCA violations. It’s like The Intercept’s lawsuit filed by the same law firm on the same date, also accusing OpenAI of DMCA violations, failure to enter into licensing agreements, and facilitating user copyright infringement.
The most notable difference between the two cases is that The Intercept included both Microsoft and OpenAI as defendants, while Raw Story and AlterNet suit only named OpenAI.
Dismissed. On November 7, 2024, a New York federal judge dismissed Raw Story and Alternet’s lawsuit against OpenAI. Judge McMahon ruled that the plaintiffs lacked a real injury here, and couldn’t prove any adverse effects. Additional reading via Bloomberg Law.
Copyright Infringement.
The New York Times Company has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and its investor, the technology giant, for copyright infringement. The lawsuit alleges that the companies used millions of the newspaper's articles without permission to train their artificial intelligence models, which include the popular AI platform ChatGPT and the AI platform now known as Copilot.
The New York Times claims that OpenAI and its AI models, which are powered by large language models (LLMs), have generated output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style.
The newspaper argues that the unlawful use of its work to create AI models infringes on its copyright and seeks to hold the companies responsible for billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages.
The New York Times is the first major media company to sue artificial intelligence companies for copyright infringement. The lawsuit alleges that OpenAI and its investor, the technology giant, have used millions of the newspaper's articles without permission to train their AI models, which have been used to generate content that closely resembles the Times' work.
The key issues in this case include:
The New York Times seeks to hold OpenAI and its investors responsible for the billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages caused by the unlawful use of its work to create AI models
The newspaper also asks the court to prevent them from training their AI models using its work and to remove its work from their datasets.
Copyright Infringement
The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft infringed their copyrights by using their works to train their ChatGPT AI language model. They argue that this is a violation of their exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their works.
On November 21, 2023, Julian Sancton and other writers filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft infringed their copyrights by using their works to train their ChatGPT AI language model.
The plaintiffs argue that OpenAI and Microsoft's use of their works is not a fair use because it is not transformative. They also argue that OpenAI and Microsoft's use of their works is commercial because ChatGPT is a commercial product.OpenAI and Microsoft have denied the allegations in the lawsuit.
The companies have argued that ChatGPT is a fair use of the plaintiffs' works because it is a transformative work that creates new meaning and expression. OpenAI and Microsoft have also argued that the plaintiffs have not suffered any damages because ChatGPT has not replaced their works in the marketplace.
The case is still in its early stages, and it is too early to say how it will be resolved. However, the case has raised important questions about the copyright implications of training large language models on copyrighted data.
The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the development and use of large language models. If the court finds that OpenAI and Microsoft's use of the plaintiffs' works is a copyright infringement, it could make it more difficult for AI developers to use copyrighted data to train their models. This could stifle innovation in the AI field.
On the other hand, if the court finds that OpenAI and Microsoft's use of the plaintiffs' works is a fair use, it could pave the way for the wider use of copyrighted data to train large language models. This could lead to the development of new and innovative AI products and services.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop OpenAI and Microsoft from using their works, as well as damages for the profits that OpenAI and Microsoft have made from using their works without permission.
Copyright Infringement
The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI infringed their copyrights by using their works to train its ChatGPT AI language model. They argue that this is a violation of their exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their works.
On September 19, 2023, the Authors Guild and 17 authors filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI infringed their copyrights by using their works to train its ChatGPT AI language model.
The plaintiffs argue that OpenAI's use of their works is not a fair use because it is not transformative. They also argue that OpenAI's use of their works is commercial because ChatGPT is a commercial product.
OpenAI has denied the allegations in the lawsuit. The company has argued that ChatGPT is a fair use of the plaintiffs' works because it is a transformative work that creates new meaning and expression. OpenAI has also argued that the plaintiffs have not suffered any damages because ChatGPT has not replaced their works in the marketplace.
The case is still in its early stages, and it is too early to say how it will be resolved. However, the case has raised important questions about the copyright implications of training large language models on copyrighted data.
The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the development and use of large language models. If the court finds that OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' works is a copyright infringement, it could make it more difficult for AI developers to use copyrighted data to train their models. This could stifle innovation in the AI field.
On the other hand, if the court finds that OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' works is a fair use, it could pave the way for the wider use of copyrighted data to train large language models. This could lead to the development of new and innovative AI products and services.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop OpenAI from using their works, as well as damages for the profits that OpenAI has made from using their works without permission.
Copyright Infringement
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants infringed their copyrights by creating and distributing a dataset that contains substantial portions of their copyrighted works.
Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc. is a copyright infringement lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 8, 2023. The plaintiffs are Pulitzer Prize-winning author Michael Chabon and several other writers, including George R.R Martin, David Henry Hwang, Matthew Klam, Rachel Louise Snyder, and Ayelet Waldman. The defendant is OpenAI, Inc., the developer of the ChatGPT AI language generator.
The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI copied their copyrighted works without permission to train ChatGPT. They argue that this is a violation of their exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their works. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to stop OpenAI from using their works, as well as damages for the profits that OpenAI has made from using their works without permission.
OpenAI has denied the allegations in the lawsuit. The company has argued that ChatGPT is a fair use of the plaintiffs' works because it is a transformative work that creates new meaning and expression. OpenAI has also argued that the plaintiffs have not suffered any damages because ChatGPT has not replaced their works in the marketplace.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop the defendants from using their works, as well as damages for the profits that the defendants have made from using their works without permission.
Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
OpenAI, Inc. alleges that Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. infringed its trademark "OpenAI" by using a nearly identical trademark "Open AI" on its website and in its marketing materials. OpenAI also alleges that Open Artificial Intelligence engaged in unfair competition by creating a fraudulent website to mislead the USPTO into believing that it was using the "Open AI" mark in commerce.
OpenAI, Inc. v. Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. is a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by OpenAI, Inc., the developer of ChatGPT and Dall-E, against Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc., an unaffiliated company. OpenAI alleges that Open Artificial Intelligence is infringing on its trademark by using a nearly-identical name and logo, and by creating a fraudulent website to mislead the USPTO into believing that it is using the mark in commerce.
OpenAI filed the lawsuit on August 4, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is still ongoing, and no trial date has been set.
In its complaint, OpenAI alleges that Open Artificial Intelligence has caused it "irreparable harm" by damaging its reputation and goodwill, and by confusing consumers into believing that the two companies are affiliated. OpenAI is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Open Artificial Intelligence from using the mark, as well as damages and attorneys' fees.
Open Artificial Intelligence has not yet filed a response to the complaint.
The outcome of this case could have broader implications for the tech industry, as it raises questions about the use of generic terms in trademarks. The term "artificial intelligence" is a descriptive term that is used by many companies in the tech industry. It is unclear whether OpenAI will be able to successfully assert trademark rights in the term "Open AI," given that other companies are also using the term in a descriptive manner.
OpenAI seeks injunctive relief to stop Open Artificial Intelligence from using the "Open AI" trademark and website, as well as damages for the profits that Open Artificial Intelligence has made from infringing on OpenAI's trademark and engaging in unfair competition.
Breach of Contract
The plaintiffs allege that GitHub, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, OPENAI, INC., OPENAI, L.P., OPENAI GP, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, P.L. and OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC infringed their copyrights by using their code to train their Codex and Copilot AI coding tools. They argue that this is a violation of their exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their code.
On November 10, 2022, a group of programmers filed a lawsuit against GitHub, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, OPENAI, INC., OPENAI, L.P., OPENAI GP, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, P.L. and OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that GitHub and OpenAI infringed their copyrights by using their code to train their Codex and Copilot AI coding tools.
The plaintiffs claim that they had licensed their code to GitHub under open source licenses that require attribution and require GitHub to obtain permission before using the code for commercial purposes. The plaintiffs allege that GitHub and OpenAI violated these licenses by using their code without permission and without attribution.
The plaintiffs also allege that GitHub and OpenAI engaged in unfair competition by using their code to create a competitive advantage for their own products. The plaintiffs argue that GitHub and OpenAI's use of their code gives them a head start in the development of new AI coding tools.
GitHub, Microsoft, OpenAI, and the other defendants have denied the allegations in the lawsuit. The companies have argued that their use of the plaintiffs' code is a fair use because it is transformative. They also argue that the plaintiffs have not suffered any damages because their code is still available to the public.
The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the development and use of large language models. If the court finds that GitHub and OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' code is a copyright infringement, it could make it more difficult for AI developers to use copyrighted code to train their models. This could stifle innovation in the AI field.
On the other hand, if the court finds that GitHub and OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' code is a fair use, it could pave the way for the wider use of copyrighted code to train large language models. This could lead to the development of new and innovative AI products and services.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop GitHub and OpenAI from using their code, as well as damages for the profits that GitHub and OpenAI have made from using their code without permission.
Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, and Unfair Competition
The plaintiffs allege that GitHub, Inc. and OpenAI, Inc. infringed their copyrights by using their code to train their Codex and Copilot AI coding tools. They argue that this is a violation of their exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly display their code.
The plaintiffs also allege that GitHub and OpenAI breached their contract with the plaintiffs by using their code without permission. The plaintiffs claim that they had licensed their code to GitHub under open source licenses that require attribution and require GitHub to obtain permission before using the code for commercial purposes.
The plaintiffs further allege that GitHub and OpenAI engaged in unfair competition by using the plaintiffs' code to create a competitive advantage for their own products.
On November 3, 2022, a group of programmers filed a lawsuit against GitHub, Inc. and OpenAI, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that GitHub and OpenAI infringed their copyrights by using their code to train their Codex and Copilot AI coding tools.
The plaintiffs claim that they had licensed their code to GitHub under open source licenses that require attribution and require GitHub to obtain permission before using the code for commercial purposes. The plaintiffs allege that GitHub and OpenAI violated these licenses by using their code without permission and without attribution.
GitHub and OpenAI have denied the allegations in the lawsuit. The companies have argued that their use of the plaintiffs' code is a fair use because it is transformative. They also argue that the plaintiffs have not suffered any damages because their code is still available to the public.
The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the development and use of large language models. If the court finds that GitHub and OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' code is a copyright infringement, it could make it more difficult for AI developers to use copyrighted code to train their models. This could stifle innovation in the AI field.
On the other hand, if the court finds that GitHub and OpenAI's use of the plaintiffs' code is a fair use, it could pave the way for the wider use of copyrighted code to train large language models. This could lead to the development of new and innovative AI products and services.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop GitHub and OpenAI from using their code, as well as damages for the profits that GitHub and OpenAI have made from using their code without permission.
Nature of the Action: This is a Class Action Lawsuit on the behalf of US Consumer Privacy and unauthorized data use. The plaintiffs are alleging that OpenAI misused their personal data from social media platforms and other sites to train its AI systems, including ChatGPT.
Claims: The primary claims in the lawsuit revolve around privacy infringements, violations of consumer rights, and the unauthorised use of personal information.
Relief Sought: The relief sought in the case includes an unspecified monetary amount for damages. Additionally, the plaintiffs are requesting that the court order the companies (OpenAI and potentially Microsoft) to implement safeguards to prevent the misuse of private data. The specific details of the relief sought may become clearer as the case progresses through the legal system.
In the matter herein, the complainant, Mark Walters, hitherto referred to as the “Plaintiff,” has instituted legal proceedings. The essence of the instant action lies in the Plaintiff’s assertion of the culpability of OpenAI LLC, hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant,” for libel.
This class-action lawsuit is similar to the Tremblay lawsuit and is filed on behalf of three authors; Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey.
This class-action lawsuit claims that OpenaAI infringed copyright by using the author’s books without permission to train ChatGPT, seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive redress and pecuniary indemnities.
Plaintiff alleges infringement of privacy, unauthorized data use, and violation of federal and state privacy and property laws against defendant OpenAI LP.
This action arises from the unauthorized acquisition and utilization of private information by Defendant OpenAI LP, a prominent actor in the field of artificial intelligence, in relation to its generative AI programs ChatGPT and DALL-E. Plaintiff asserts that OpenAI has surreptitiously accessed private data from internet users, including minors, without appropriate consent and in breach of legal norms.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, and other appropriate relief as determined by the court.
OpenAI is being sued based on some similar allegations:
These legal actions highlight the growing legal complexities surrounding AI-generated content and raises questions about the legal framework applicable to ChatGPT and emerging AI technologies. It could also be fined and also be required to change its data collection and use practices. It could also set a precedent for other lawsuits against AI companies. This could lead to stricter regulations on how AI companies collect and use data.
The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages and other appropriate remedies as determined by the Courts.
There are a few things that individuals can do to protect their privacy from AI companies such as:
Policymakers can take a number of steps to protect the public from AI companies such as:
The lawsuits invoke principles related to copyright las, privacy rights, defamation and potential violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
AI-generated content raises complex questions about intellectual property ownership, privacy violations, liability for defamation, and the adaptability of existing legal frameworks to emerging AI technologies.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a U.S copyright law that addresses issues related to digital content and copyright protection. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs claim that OpenAI’s actions violate the DMCA by stripping copyrighted works of their copyright notices.
No, that’s one of the benefits, only fill out the areas which you think will be relevant to the prompts you require.
When making the tool we had to make each prompt as general as possible to be able to include every kind of input. Not to worry though ChatGPT is smart and will still understand the prompt.
Originality.ai did a fantastic job on all three prompts, precisely detecting them as AI-written. Additionally, after I checked with actual human-written textual content, it did determine it as 100% human-generated, which is important.
Vahan Petrosyan
searchenginejournal.com
I use this tool most frequently to check for AI content personally. My most frequent use-case is checking content submitted by freelance writers we work with for AI and plagiarism.
Tom Demers
searchengineland.com
After extensive research and testing, we determined Originality.ai to be the most accurate technology.
Rock Content Team
rockcontent.com
Jon Gillham, Founder of Originality.ai came up with a tool to detect whether the content is written by humans or AI tools. It’s built on such technology that can specifically detect content by ChatGPT-3 — by giving you a spam score of 0-100, with an accuracy of 94%.
Felix Rose-Collins
ranktracker.com
ChatGPT lacks empathy and originality. It’s also recognized as AI-generated content most of the time by plagiarism and AI detectors like Originality.ai
Ashley Stahl
forbes.com
Originality.ai Do give them a shot!
Sri Krishna
venturebeat.com
For web publishers, Originality.ai will enable you to scan your content seamlessly, see who has checked it previously, and detect if an AI-powered tool was implored.
Industry Trends
analyticsinsight.net
Tools for conducting a plagiarism check between two documents online are important as it helps to ensure the originality and authenticity of written work. Plagiarism undermines the value of professional and educational institutions, as well as the integrity of the authors who write articles. By checking for plagiarism, you can ensure the work that you produce is original or properly attributed to the original author. This helps prevent the distribution of copied and misrepresented information.
Text comparison is the process of taking two or more pieces of text and comparing them to see if there are any similarities, differences and/or plagiarism. The objective of a text comparison is to see if one of the texts has been copied or paraphrased from another text. This text compare tool for plagiarism check between two documents has been built to help you streamline that process by finding the discrepancies with ease.
Text comparison tools work by analyzing and comparing the contents of two or more text documents to find similarities and differences between them. This is typically done by breaking the texts down into smaller units such as sentences or phrases, and then calculating a similarity score based on the number of identical or nearly identical units. The comparison may be based on the exact wording of the text, or it may take into account synonyms and other variations in language. The results of the comparison are usually presented in the form of a report or visual representation, highlighting the similarities and differences between the texts.
String comparison is a fundamental operation in text comparison tools that involves comparing two sequences of characters to determine if they are identical or not. This comparison can be done at the character level or at a higher level, such as the word or sentence level.
The most basic form of string comparison is the equality test, where the two strings are compared character by character and a Boolean result indicating whether they are equal or not is returned. More sophisticated string comparison algorithms use heuristics and statistical models to determine the similarity between two strings, even if they are not exactly the same. These algorithms often use techniques such as edit distance, which measures the minimum number of operations (such as insertions, deletions, and substitutions) required to transform one string into another.
Another common technique for string comparison is n-gram analysis, where the strings are divided into overlapping sequences of characters (n-grams) and the frequency of each n-gram is compared between the two strings. This allows for a more nuanced comparison that takes into account partial similarities, rather than just exact matches.
String comparison is a crucial component of text comparison tools, as it forms the basis for determining the similarities and differences between texts. The results of the string comparison can then be used to generate a report or visual representation of the similarities and differences between the texts.
Syntax highlighting is a feature of text editors and integrated development environments (IDEs) that helps to visually distinguish different elements of a code or markup language. It does this by coloring different elements of the code, such as keywords, variables, functions, and operators, based on a predefined set of rules.
The purpose of syntax highlighting is to make the code easier to read and understand, by drawing attention to the different elements and their structure. For example, keywords may be colored in a different hue to emphasize their importance, while comments or strings may be colored differently to distinguish them from the code itself. This helps to make the code more readable, reducing the cognitive load of the reader and making it easier to identify potential syntax errors.
With our tool it’s easy, just enter or upload some text, click on the button “Compare text” and the tool will automatically display the diff between the two texts.
Using text comparison tools is much easier, more efficient, and more reliable than proofreading a piece of text by hand. Eliminate the risk of human error by using a tool to detect and display the text difference within seconds.
We have support for the file extensions .pdf, .docx, .odt, .doc and .txt. You can also enter your text or copy and paste text to compare.
There is never any data saved by the tool, when you hit “Upload” we are just scanning the text and pasting it into our text area so with our text compare tool, no data ever enters our servers.
Copyright © 2023, Originality.ai
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
This table below shows a heat map of features on other sites compared to ours as you can see we almost have greens across the board!
