Editing Disney Enterprises v MiniMax (section)

=== Nanonoble Motion to Dismiss (12(b)(6)) ===
Nanonoble raises four principal arguments:<ref name="mckool" /><ref name="chatgptiseatingtheworld" /><ref name="vital">[https://www.vitallaw.com/news/copyright-news-movie-studios-are-the-latest-to-face-challenge-based-on-cox-decision/ipm0158bc9e7e00454e11a1590635f64e5b09 Vital Law - Copyright News: Studios Face Challenge Based on Cox Decision]</ref>

# '''Lack of registered copyrights in individual characters''' — Disney's copyright registrations cover works containing the characters, not the characters themselves, which Nanonoble argues is insufficient under Ninth Circuit law
# '''Extraterritoriality''' — AI models were trained in China, beyond the U.S. Copyright Act's extraterritorial reach, citing ''Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe''
# '''Contributory infringement fails the Cox Communications standard''' — no tailored service or inducement designed to facilitate infringement
# '''Disney's own test generations do not constitute infringement''' — "A copyright owner cannot infringe its own copyright," citing ''Richmond v. Weiner'' (9th Cir. 1965)