<\/p>\n The Nazemian case<\/a> was filed in early 2024 and heard in the Northern District of California before Judge Jon Tigar and concerns allegations that Nvidia\u2019s AI tools and reference models were trained on copyrighted books sourced from so-called shadow libraries, including Anna’s Archive and Books3. The plaintiffs\u2019 amended complaint references internal discussions<\/a> during which Nvidia employees allegedly sought confirmation regarding access to Anna\u2019s Archive, arguing that this amounts to evidence of unlawful use.<\/p>\n You may like<\/p>\n In its motion to dismiss, Nvidia argues that the amended complaint fails to allege even the most basic elements required for a copyright infringement claim. According to the filing, the plaintiffs \u201cdo not allege facts showing that Nvidia copied any of their copyrighted works, when any such copying occurred, or which Nvidia models supposedly contain those works.\u201d The company says that without those details, the claims are entirely speculative.<\/p>\n Addressing the Anna\u2019s Archive allegations directly, Nvidia states that while the complainant describes internal discussions and inquiries about potential access to the site, they don\u2019t allege that Nvidia actually obtained or downloaded any of the plaintiffs\u2019 works from it. The motion goes on to argue that discussing or evaluating possible data sources isn\u2019t equivalent to copying copyrighted materials, and that copyright law requires plaintiffs to plead facts showing reproduction of protected works. \u201cIt\u2019s equally plausible Nvidia did not [obtain the Plaintiffs\u2019 works].\u201d<\/p>\n Pulling no punches, Nvidia also criticizes the plaintiffs\u2019 reliance on allegations made \u201con information and belief,\u201d arguing that this approach improperly attempts to use discovery as a substitute for pleading. Nvidia goes on in its motion to remind the court that copyright plaintiffs must allege infringement before discovery begins, not rely on discovery to determine whether infringement occurred in the first place, which Anna\u2019s Archive appears to be attempting to do in this case.<\/p>\n Beyond Anna\u2019s Archive, Nvidia seeks to narrow the scope of the case by challenging the inclusion of additional datasets and models, such as Megatron 345M, added in the amended complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs improperly lump together multiple models and tools without explaining how any particular model was trained on their works. In several instances, Nvidia <\/a>points to its own public documentation to argue that the plaintiffs\u2019 assumptions about training data are contradicted by publicly available sources.<\/p>\n The amended complaint also introduces a secondary liability theory tied to Nvidia\u2019s NeMo Megatron framework and its support for downloading large public datasets such as The Pile. Nvidia responds that the complaint doesn\u2019t allege a predicate act of direct infringement by any third party, which is required to sustain claims of contributory or vicarious copyright infringement. Providing optional tooling, the company argues, doesn\u2019t establish liability absent specific allegations that users infringed copyrights using that tooling.<\/p>\n The motion to dismiss is due to be heard in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, on April 2, 2026.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n <\/a><\/p>\n Follow Tom’s Hardware on Google News<\/a>, or add us as a preferred source<\/a>, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Nvidia is pushing back against claims that it trained AI models on pirated books, telling a federal court…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":468115,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[256,254,255,64,63,105],"class_list":{"0":"post-468114","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-artificial-intelligence","8":"tag-ai","9":"tag-artificial-intelligence","10":"tag-artificialintelligence","11":"tag-au","12":"tag-australia","13":"tag-technology"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/468114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=468114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/468114\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/468115"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=468114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=468114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=468114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"Google](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/7cUTDmN2PHNRiNBVqbKf56.png\")
\n<\/p>\n