To state the obvious, Jenner is drawing a VERY sharp contrast with Paul Weiss and other Big Law firms capitulating to Trump. They're mounting a full-court press against the administration with the coordinated lawsuit and statement declaring their intent to fight this to the end and win. Refreshing!

Did you ever get a response to this? I'm also curious.

At least some of the "writers" are just interpolation credits (e.g. Ray Charles), which aren't eligible for Grammy consideration. But I don't think that's a comprehensive answer.

For now, this decision is the primary data point to go on. And a lot of expectations will be formed in the meantime.

Ross at least cited it in the most recent round of SJ briefing, but didn't lean on it as much as it probably should have. It relied more on Google Books/ Hathitrust, which were equally absent from the court's factor 1 analysis.
💯 agree that future appeals will confront this. But that's years away.

...for instance, Thomson Reuters' opposition included an argument for why iParadigms didn't apply here. I would have expected the opinion to offer some discussion of whether Ross or Thomson has the better of that argument, but instead the court skipped over it. For me that's a head scratcher.

I'm not sure which 2d Cir appeal you're referring to (Ross is in the 3d Cir), though yes when the question is presented to them I'm sure they will. My point was that this opinion's value as a bellwether is lessened by its absence of analysis on those cases.

Is it surprising? Yes I think so... (1/2)

I'm nowhere near as confident as @bbutler.bsky.social that Google Books, iParadigms, etc. dictate a fair use holding in genAI cases. But I do agree with him that the Ross court ignored them. If those cases are indeed inapposite, it sure would have been helpful for the court to explain why.

I dunno maybe Ross should have cited those cases?

Rooting against the Lakers is free and available to all.