DHS references Mexican IndyCar driver to promote ‘Speedway Slammer’ detention center; The Guardian, August 7, 2025

 Agencies , The Guardian; DHS references Mexican IndyCar driver to promote ‘Speedway Slammer’ detention center

[Kip Currier: Not only is this statement by a DHS spokesperson factually inaccurate, as there's a cogent argument these actions by DHS may negatively impact trademark rights (and rights of publicity) -- “An AI generated image of a car with ‘ICE’ on the side does not violate anyone’s intellectual property rights" -- it's also morally offensive to either recklessly or intentionally appropriate without permission the racing number of one of the top Mexican drivers for use in a DHS promotion that demeans human beings.]

[Excerpt]

"IndyCar driver Pato O’Ward and series officials were shocked by a social media post from the Department of Homeland Security that touts plans for an immigration detention center in Indiana dubbed “Speedway Slammer.” It includes a car with the same number as that of O’Ward, the only Mexican driver in the series.

“It caught a lot of people off guard. Definitely caught me off guard,” O’Ward said Wednesday. “I was just a little bit shocked at the coincidences of that and, you know, of what it means ... I don’t think it made a lot of people proud, to say the least.”

The post on Tuesday included an AI-generated image of a IndyCar-style vehicle with O’Ward’s No 5 that has “ICE” stamped on it. In the image, the car is in front of a jail...

“We were unaware of plans to incorporate our imagery as part of yesterday’s announcement,” IndyCar said in a statement Wednesday. “Consistent with our approach to public policy and political issues, we are communicating our preference that our IP not be utilized moving forward in relation to this matter.”

A DHS spokesperson said it would not change the social media post. “An AI generated image of a car with ‘ICE’ on the side does not violate anyone’s intellectual property rights. Any suggestion to the contrary is absurd,” the spokesperson said in statement. “DHS will continue promoting the ‘Speedway Slammer’ as a comprehensive and collaborative approach to combatting illegal immigration.”

Anthropic’s settlement with authors may be the ‘first domino to fall’ in AI copyright battles; Fortune, August 27, 2025

BEATRICE NOLAN, Fortune; Anthropic’s settlement with authors may be the ‘first domino to fall’ in AI copyright battles

"The amount of the settlement was not immediately disclosed, but legal experts not involved in the case said the figure could easily reach into the hundreds of millions. It’s also still unclear how the settlement will be distributed among various copyright holders, which could include large publishing houses as well as individual authors.

The case was the first certified class action against an AI company over the use of copyrighted materials, and the quick settlement, which came just one month after the judge ruled the case could proceed to trial as a class action, is a win for the authors, according to legal experts."

Medicare Will Require Prior Approval for Certain Procedures; The New York Times, August 28, 2025

 Reed Abelson and Teddy Rosenbluth , The New York Times; Medicare Will Require Prior Approval for Certain Procedures

[Kip Currier: Does anyone who receives Medicare -- or cares about someone who does -- really think that letting AI make "prior approvals" for any Medicare procedures is a good thing?

Read the entire article, but just the money quote below should give any thinking person heart palpitations about this AI Medicare pilot project's numerous red flags and conflicts of interest...]

[Excerpt]

"The A.I. companies selected to oversee the program would have a strong financial incentive to deny claims. Medicare plans to pay them a share of the savings generated from rejections."

Anthropic Settles High-Profile AI Copyright Lawsuit Brought by Book Authors; Wired, August 26, 2025

Kate Knobs, Wired ; Anthropic Settles High-Profile AI Copyright Lawsuit Brought by Book Authors

"ANTHROPIC HAS REACHED a preliminary settlement in a class action lawsuit brought by a group of prominent authors, marking a major turn in one of the most significant ongoing AI copyright lawsuits in history. The move will allow Anthropic to avoid what could have been a financially devastating outcome in court."

Anthropic’s surprise settlement adds new wrinkle in AI copyright war; Reuters, August 27, 2025

 Blake Brittain, Reuters; Anthropic’s surprise settlement adds new wrinkle in AI copyright war

"Anthropic's class action settlement with a group of U.S. authors this week was a first, but legal experts said the case's distinct qualities complicate the deal's potential influence on a wave of ongoing copyright lawsuits against other artificial-intelligence focused companies like OpenAI, Microsoft and Meta Platforms.

Amazon-backed Anthropic was under particular pressure, with a trial looming in December after a judge found it liable for pirating millions of copyrighted books. The terms of the settlement, which require a judge's approval, are not yet public. And U.S. courts have just begun to wrestle with novel copyright questions related to generative AI, which could prompt other defendants to hold out for favorable rulings."

Think you actually own all those movies you’ve been buying digitally? Think again; The Guardian, August 27, 2025

 J Oliver Conroy, The Guardian; Think you actually own all those movies you’ve been buying digitally? Think again

[Kip Currier: This article underscores why the First Sale Doctrine (Section 109a) of the U.S. Copyright Statute is such a boon for consumers and public libraries: when you (or a library) buy a physical book, you actually do own that physical book (though the copyright to that book remains with the copyright holder, which is an important distinction to remember).

The First Sale Doctrine is what enables a library to purchase physical books and then lend them to as many borrowers as it wants. Not so for digital books, which are generally licensed by publishers to users and libraries who pay for licenses to those digital books.

The bottom line: You as a digital content licensee only retain access to the digital items you license, so long as the holder of that license -- the licensor -- says you may have access to its licensed content.

This distinction between physical and digital content has put great pressure on library budgets to provide users with access to electronic resources, while libraries face ever-increasing fees from licensors. This fiscally-fraught environment has been exacerbated by Trump 2.0's dismantling of IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services) grants that supported the licensing of ebooks and audiobooks by libraries. Some states have said "enough" and are attempting to rebalance what some see as an unequal power dynamic between publishers and libraries/users. See "Libraries Pay More for E-Books. Some States Want to Change That. Proposed legislation would pressure publishers to adjust borrowing limits and find other ways to widen access." New York Times (July 16, 2025)]

[Excerpt]

"Regardless of whether the lawsuit is ultimately successful, it speaks to a real problem in an age when people access films, television series, music and video games through fickle online platforms: impermanence. The advent of streaming promised a world of digital riches in which we could access libraries of our favorite content whenever we wanted. It hasn’t exactly worked out that way...

The problem is that you aren’t downloading the movie, to own and watch forever; you’re just getting access to it on Amazon’s servers – a right that only lasts as long as Amazon also has access to the film, which depends on capricious licensing agreements that vary from title to title. A month or five years from now, that license may expire – and the movie will disappear from your Amazon library. Yet the $14.99 you paid does not reappear in your pocket."

Trump is targeting several Smithsonian artworks. Here they are.; The Washington Post, August 26, 2025

 

Kelsey Ables

, 

Samantha Chery

 and 

Sophia Nguyen,

The Washington Post; Trump is targeting several Smithsonian artworks. Here they are.

[Kip Currier: Donald Trump and his administration's efforts to remove, revise, and erase artistic and historical content are the opposite of free speech and intellectual freedom. Art should challenge us to think and feel in new ways. We as individuals are certainly free to like a piece of art, hate it, or everything in between on the spectrum of how we feel about it. But the federal (or state) government should not be controlling access to art and suppressing or falsely presenting history in a free democracy. That's what authoritarians and dictators do in non-democratic nations like Russia, China, and North Korea.

If you don't like a particular painting, book, or movie, you can simply walk away from that painting, not read that book, or not watch that movie. But it isn't your right to stop everyone from seeing art, reading books, and watching films. To paraphrase the late Robert Croneberger, Director of the venerable Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh and a prolific proponent of intellectual freedom, a library isn't doing its job if it doesn't have at least one item that offends each person.

Similarly, museums, like libraries in healthy democracies, are not meant to reflect a compulsory unitary state viewpoint. We're not the Star Trek Borg Collective where everyone must think alike and individuality is verboten. The mantra of the Borg is that Resistance is Futile. Fortunately, we know that resistance is not futile: we can continue to resist efforts to sanitize art, literature, culture, and history. Exercise your right to consume what you want and disregard what you don't want. But don't tell everyone what they can and can't choose to view and read. That's undemocratic and un-American.]

[Excerpt]

"When the White House posted an article condemning a long list of Smithsonian content last week, it pointed to several specific artworks, a sampling that underlined the kind of material that could be targeted by a president who is increasingly interested in influencing what Americans see in public museums.

The list also criticized Smithsonian exhibition texts, learning materials, past performances and the institution for previously flying the intersex-inclusive Pride flag. This month, President Donald Trump said White House officials were conducting a review of the Smithsonian Institution — months after he signed an executive order seeking to root out “anti-American ideology” in the museum and research complex, an effort that experts say would amount to censorship.

The pieces are an eclectic bunch, united mainly by the Trump administration’s public criticism of them. Not all the artworks are currently on view at the museums. Taken together, they tell a story of a White House that is sensitive to imagery that appears to contradict its messaging, whether it shows a transgender woman cast as the Statue of Liberty or a boy peering over the Southern border...

Here is a look at the artworks named by the White House as evidence that Trump is “right” about the Smithsonian — and how several of the artists have responded."

Can you copyright artwork made using AI?; NPR, August 25, 2025

Emma Jacobs, Wailin Wong, Julia Ritchey, Kate Concannon, NPR; Can you copyright artwork made using AI?

"Copyright is the legal system used to reward and protect creations made by humans. But with growing adoption of artificial intelligence, does copyright extend to artwork that’s made using AI? Today on the show, how a test case over a Vincent Van Gogh mashup is testing the boundaries of copyright law."

New Ruling Makes Old Postings a New Copyright Problem; Lexology, August 21, 2025

Gordon Feinblatt LLC, Lexology; New Ruling Makes Old Postings a New Copyright Problem

 "Go through your website and delete any old photos and music you do not own or have a license to use. Every company and internet user should be diligent and not post any images, music, or other content unless they are certain they have the rights to do so. Lesson number one is: do not merely pluck material from the internet and use it for yourself.

Lesson number two is that copyright owners can now look back more than three years and obtain damages for a long history of infringement. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that copyright damages can reach back to the beginning of the infringing usage so long as a copyright infringement case is properly brought. This means that historical usage of infringing works can rack up many years of damages."

Medical triage as an AI ethics benchmark; Nature, August 22, 2025

 

Nathalie Maria Kirch, 

Konstantin Hebenstreit & 

Matthias Samwald

, Nature; Medical triage as an AI ethics benchmark

"We present the TRIAGE benchmark, a novel machine ethics benchmark designed to evaluate the ethical decision-making abilities of large language models (LLMs) in mass casualty scenarios. TRIAGE uses medical dilemmas created by healthcare professionals to evaluate the ethical decision-making of AI systems in real-world, high-stakes scenarios. We evaluated six major LLMs on TRIAGE, examining how different ethical and adversarial prompts influence model behavior. Our results show that most models consistently outperformed random guessing, with open source models making more serious ethical errors than proprietary models. Providing guiding ethical principles to LLMs degraded performance on TRIAGE, which stand in contrast to results from other machine ethics benchmarks where explicating ethical principles improved results. Adversarial prompts significantly decreased accuracy. By demonstrating the influence of context and ethical framing on the performance of LLMs, we provide critical insights into the current capabilities and limitations of AI in high-stakes ethical decision making in medicine."

How ChatGPT Surprised Me; The New York Times, August 24, 2025

Ezra Klein, The New York Times ; How ChatGPT Surprised Me

"In some corners of the internet — I’m looking at you, Bluesky — it’s become gauche to react to A.I. with anything save dismissiveness or anger. The anger I understand, and parts of it I share. I am not comfortable with these companies becoming astonishingly rich off the entire available body of human knowledge. Yes, we all build on what came before us. No company founded today is free of debt to the inventors and innovators who preceded it. But there is something different about inhaling the existing corpus of human knowledge, algorithmically transforming it into predictive text generation and selling it back to us. (I should note that The New York Times is suing OpenAI and its partner Microsoft for copyright infringement, claims both companies have denied.)

Right now, the A.I. companies are not making all that much money off these products. If they eventually do make the profits their investors and founders imagine, I don’t think the normal tax structure is sufficient to cover the debt they owe all of us, and everyone before us, on whose writing and ideas their models are built...

As the now-cliché line goes, this is the worst A.I. will ever be, and this is the fewest number of users it will have. The dependence of humans on artificial intelligence will only grow, with unknowable consequences both for human society and for individual human beings. What will constant access to these systems mean for the personalities of the first generation to use them starting in childhood? We truly have no idea. My children are in that generation, and the experiment we are about to run on them scares me."

Who owns the copyright for AI work?; Financial Times, August 24, 2025

 BARRY SCANNELL, Financial Times; Who owns the copyright for AI work?

"Generative artificial intelligence poses two copyright puzzles. The first is the widely discussed question of compensation for work used to train AI models. The second, which has yet to receive as much attention, concerns the work that AI produces. Copyright is granted to authors. So what happens to work that has no human author?"

Suetopia: Generative AI is a lawsuit waiting to happen to your business; The Register, August 12, 2025

 Adam Pitch, The Register ; Suetopia: Generative AI is a lawsuit waiting to happen to your business

"More and more US companies are using generative AI as a way to save money they might otherwise pay creative professionals. But they're not thinking about the legal bills.

You could be asking an AI to create public-facing communications for your company, such as a logo, promotional copy, or an entire website. If those materials happen to look like copyrighted works, you may be hearing from a lawyer.

"It's pretty clear that if you create something that's substantially similar to a copyrighted work that an infringement has occurred, unless it's for a fair use purpose," said Kit Walsh, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Director of AI and Access-to-Knowledge Legal Projects."

Using AI for Work Could Land You on the Receiving End of a Nasty Lawsuit; Futurism, August 23, 2025

 JOE WILKINS , Futurism; Using AI for Work Could Land You on the Receiving End of a Nasty Lawsuit

"For all its hype, artificial intelligence isn't without its psychological, environmental, and even spiritual hazards.

Perhaps the most pressing concern on an individual level, though, is that it puts users on the hook for a nearly infinite number of legal hazards — even at work, as it turns out.

A recent breakdown by The Register highlights the legal dangers of AI use, especially in corporate settings. If you use generative AI software to spit out graphics, press releases, logos, or videos, you and your employer could end up facing six-figure damages, the publication warns.

This is thanks to the vast archive of copyrighted data that virtually all commercial generative AI models are trained on.

The Register uses Nintendo's Mario as a prime example of how one might stumble, intentionally or not, into a massive copyright lawsuit, regardless of intent to infringe: if you use AI to generate a cutesy mascot for your plumbing company that looks too much like the iconic videogame character, you could easily find yourself in the legal crosshairs of the notoriously litigious corporation.

"The real harm comes from the attorney's fees that you can get saddled with," intellectual property lawyer Benjamin Bedrava told the publication. "Because you could have a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in attorney's fees over something where the license would have been fifteen hundred dollars.""

PittGPT debuts today as private AI source for University; University Times, August 21, 2025

 MARTY LEVINE, University Times; PittGPT debuts today as private AI source for University

"Today marks the rollout of PittGPT, Pitt’s own generative AI for staff and faculty — a service that will be able to use Pitt’s sensitive, internal data in isolation from the Internet because it works only for those logging in with their Pitt ID.

“We want to be able to use AI to improve the things that we do” in our Pitt work, said Dwight Helfrich, director of the Pitt enterprise initiatives team at Pitt Digital. That means securely adding Pitt’s private information to PittGPT, including Human Resources, payroll and student data. However, he explains, in PittGPT “you would only have access to data that you would have access to in your daily role” — in your specific Pitt job.

“Security is a key part of AI,” he said. “It is much more important in AI than in other tools we provide.” Using PittGPT — as opposed to the other AI services available to Pitt employees — means that any data submitted to it “stays in our environment and it is not used to train a free AI model.”

Helfrich also emphasizes that “you should get a very similar response to PittGPT as you would get with ChatGPT,” since PittGPT had access to “the best LLM’s on the market” — the large language models used to train AI.

Faculty, staff and students already have free access to such AI services as Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot. And “any generative AI tool provides the ability to analyze data … and to rewrite things” that are still in early or incomplete drafts, Helfrich said.

“It can help take the burden off some of the work we have to do in our lives” and help us focus on the larger tasks that, so far, humans are better at undertaking, added Pitt Digital spokesperson Brady Lutsko. “When you are working with your own information, you can tell it what to include” — it won’t add misinformation from the internet or its own programming, as AI sometimes does. “If you have a draft, it will make your good work even better.”

“The human still needs to review and evaluate that this is useful and valuable,” Helfrich said of AI’s contribution to our work. “At this point we can say that there is nothing in AI that is 100 percent reliable.”

On the other hand, he said, “they’re making dramatic enhancements at a pace we’ve never seen in technology. … I’ve been in technology 30 years and I’ve never seen anything improve as quickly as AI.” In his own work, he said, “AI can help review code and provide test cases, reducing work time by 75 percent. You just have to look at it with some caution and just (verify) things.”

“Treat it like you’re having a conversation with someone you’ve just met,” Lutsko added. “You have some skepticism — you go back and do some fact checking.”

Lutsko emphasized that the University has guidance on Acceptable Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools as well as a University-Approved GenAI Tools List.

Pitt’s list of approved generative AI tools includes Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat, which is available to all students, faculty and staff (as opposed to the version of Copilot built into Microsoft 365 apps, which is an add-on available to departments through Panther Express for $30 per month, per person); Google Gemini; and Google NotebookLM, which Lutsko said “serves as a dedicated research assistant for precise analysis using user-provided documents.”

PittGPT joins that list today, Helfrich said.

Pitt also has been piloting Pitt AI Connect, a tool for researchers to integrate AI into software development (using an API, or application programming interface).

And Pitt also is already deploying the PantherAI chatbot, clickable from the bottom right of the Pitt Digital and Office of Human Resources homepages, which provides answers to common questions that may otherwise be deep within Pitt’s webpages. It will likely be offered on other Pitt websites in the future.

“Dive in and use it,” Helfrich said of PittGPT. “I see huge benefits from all of the generative AI tools we have. I’ve saved time and produced better results.”"

Watering down Australia’s AI copyright laws would sacrifice writers’ livelihoods to ‘brogrammers’; The Guardian, August 11, 2025

 Tracey Spicer, The Guardian; Watering down Australia’s AI copyright laws would sacrifice writers’ livelihoods to ‘brogrammers’

"My latest book, which is about artificial intelligence discriminating against people from marginalised communities, was composed on an Apple Mac.

Whatever the form of recording the first rough draft of history, one thing remains the same: they are very human stories – stories that change the way we think about the world.

A society is the sum of the stories it tells. When stories, poems or books are “scraped”, what does this really mean?

The definition of scraping is to “drag or pull a hard or sharp implement across (a surface or object) so as to remove dirt or other matter”.

A long way from Brisbane or Bangladesh, in the rarefied climes of Silicon Valley, scrapers are removing our stories as if they are dirt.

These stories are fed into the machines of the great god: generative AI. But the outputs – their creations – are flatter, less human, more homogenised. ChatGPT tells tales set in metropolitan areas in the global north; of young, cishet men and people living without disability.

We lose the stories of lesser-known characters in remote parts of the world, eroding our understanding of the messy experience of being human.

Where will we find the stories of 64-year-old John from Traralgon, who died from asbestosis? Or seven-year-old Raha from Jaipur, whose future is a “choice” between marriage at the age of 12 and sexual exploitation?

OpenAI’s creations are not the “machines of loving grace” envisioned in the 1967 poem by Richard Brautigan, where he dreams of a “cybernetic meadow”.

Scraping is a venal money grab by oligarchs who are – incidentally – scrambling to protect their own intellectual property during an AI arms race.

The code behind ChatGPT is protected by copyright, which is considered to be a literary work. (I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.)

Meta has already stolen the work of thousands of Australian writers.

Now, our own Productivity Commission is considering weakening our Copyright Act to include an exemption for text and data mining, which may well put us out of business.

In its response, The Australia Institute uses the analogy of a car: “Imagine grabbing the keys for a rental car and just driving around for a while without paying to hire it or filling in any paperwork. Then imagine that instead of being prosecuted for breaking the law, the government changed the law to make driving around in a rental car legal.”

It’s more like taking a piece out of someone’s soul, chucking it into a machine and making it into something entirely different. Ugly. Inhuman.

The commission’s report seems to be an absurdist text. The argument for watering down copyright is that it will lead to more innovation. But the explicit purpose of the Copyright Act is to protect innovation, in the form of creative endeavour.

Our work is being devalued, dismissed and destroyed; our livelihoods demolished.

In this age of techno-capitalism, it appears the only worthwhile innovation is being built by the “brogrammers”.

US companies are pinching Australian content, using it to train their models, then selling it back to us. It’s an extractive industry: neocolonialism, writ large."

USPTO Issues Examiner Reminders on AI and Software Patents; The National Law Review, August 21, 2025

Steven D. Shipe, Scott M. Simmonds of Barnes & Thornburg LLP  , The National Law Review; USPTO Issues Examiner Reminders on AI and Software Patents

"Key Points from the Memo

• Rejections Should Not Be “Close Calls”
  • Examiners are reminded that rejections under §101 should only be made if it is more likely than not that claims are ineligible.
  • If eligibility is uncertain, rejection is not appropriate."

Canadian father and son named as major 'copyright pirates' jailed 5 years unless they give up their secrets; National Post, August 21, 2025

Adrian Humphreys, National Post; Canadian father and son named as major 'copyright pirates' jailed 5 years unless they give up their secrets

 "Two Ontario men accused of being the scofflaw pirates behind years of large-scale digital streaming of copyrighted movies and TV have been sentenced to five years in prison — not for piracy, but for contempt of court — unless they reveal passwords and accounts.

Some of the biggest entertainment media companies on the continent — Bell, Rogers, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Universal, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros. — spent years chasing the digital pirates behind a bootleg service known as Smoothstreams, which was available globally from five user-friendly online platforms offering a vast collection of movies, TV and live sports since at least 2018.

Lawyers, private investigators, and technology specialists for the corporate giants began their hunt seven years ago, launching what is described as a “sophisticated, extensive, and resource and time-intensive investigation.”...

Ever since, Antonio Macciacchera, 73, of Woodbridge, Ont., and his son, Marshall Macciacchera, of Barrie, Ont., have been in a legal grapple, defying the might of global media heavyweights."

Article content\

Some of the biggest entertainment media companies on the continent — Bell, Rogers, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Universal, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros. — spent years chasing the digital pirates behind a bootleg service known as Smoothstreams, which was available globally from five user-friendly online platforms offering a vast collection of movies, TV and live sports since at least 2018.

Cornhusker copyright? Getting the facts on the name of Nebraska's new ICE detention facility; KETV, August 20, 2025

 

Waverle Monroe, KETV; Cornhusker copyright? Getting the facts on the name of Nebraska's new ICE detention facility

[Kip Currier: How crass and unnecessarily demeaning it is for ICE to use the name Cornhusker Clink to refer to a detention facility. This administration, unsurprisingly given its past actions, continues to be more focused on alliterative branding and merchandising opportunities (recall Alligator Alcatraz) than modeling professionalism in the ways it communicates a commitment to treating all detainees with dignity and respect.]

[Excerpt]

"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security dubbed the new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility as the "Cornhusker Clink." 

You can't hear the word Cornhusker without thinking of the University of Nebraska.

Many on social media questioned the legality of using the name Cornhusker for the facility. Now KETV is helping you get the facts."

Victory! Ninth Circuit Limits Intrusive DMCA Subpoenas; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), August 18, 2025

TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Victory! Ninth Circuit Limits Intrusive DMCA Subpoenas

"Fortunately, Section 512(h) has an important limitation that protects users.  Over two decades ago, several federal appeals courts ruled that Section 512(h) subpoenas cannot be issued to ISPs. Now, in In re Internet Subscribers of Cox Communications, LLC, the Ninth Circuit agreed, as EFF urged it to in our amicus brief."

Congress’s Knowledge at Risk: The Constitutional Stakes in the Perlmutter Case; The National Law Review, August 18, 2025

 Jim W. Ko of The Sedona Conference, The National Law Review; Congress’s Knowledge at Risk: The Constitutional Stakes in the Perlmutter Case

"Do all federal employees “serve at the pleasure of the President”? That question, usually tucked away in the margins of constitutional law, now sits at the center of one of the most consequential disputes of our time.

When President Trump fired Shira Perlmutter, the Director of the U.S. Copyright Office (formally the Register of Copyrights),1 the move appeared—at first glance—to be the straightforward exercise of presidential authority. After all, presidents hire and fire their own officers; the Librarian of Congress is a presidential appointee; and the Copyright Office sits within the Library.

But a closer look reveals that this case is not about ordinary personnel management. It is about whether the President can extend his reach into Congress’s own library, and in so doing, compromise both the constitutional separation of powers and the First Amendment’s guarantee against viewpoint discrimination."

CHATBOT CHEATING IN ETHICS CLASS; Christianity Today, August 18, 2025

 MYLES WERNTZ, Christianity Today; CHATBOT CHEATING IN ETHICS CLASS

"The ethical and practical problems are legion: copyright disputes, ecological effects, a possible economic bubble, and plain deceit. Still, for an undergraduate on a deadline, the appeal is obvious."

Copyright Is Dead. But Is It?; Forbes, August 12, 2025

Paulo Carvão , Forbes; Copyright Is Dead. But Is It?

"This is a clash between two visions of the future. One embraces a world where technology moves faster than the law, forcing us to abandon old notions of ownership in favor of new, more resilient business models. The other sees a future where copyright is not an outdated legal concept but a vital economic engine that can be adapted and monetized in the age of AI. The middle ground points us to a path forward that adapts current laws to fit AI’s real-world usage.

The future of copyright is unlikely to be a simple binary decision. Instead, it will be a negotiation between creators, tech companies, lawyers, and regulators. What’s clear is that the conversation is no longer confined to legal journals but has entered the mainstream, sparking a necessary dialogue about the value of creativity, the nature of intelligence, and the future of the digital economy."

‘State-driven censorship’: new wave of book bans hits Florida school districts; The Guardian, August 16, 2025

 Olivia Empson, The Guardian ; ‘State-driven censorship’: new wave of book bans hits Florida school districts

"A new wave of book bans has hit Florida school districts, with hundreds of titles being pulled from library and classroom shelves as the school year kicks off.

The Republican-dominated state, which has already had the highest rate of book bans nationwide this year, is continuing to censor reading materials in schools, bowing to external pressures in an effort to avoid conflict and government retaliation.

“This is an ideological campaign to erase LGBTQ+ lives and any honest discussion of sex, stripping libraries of resources and stories,” William Johnson, the director of PEN America’s Florida office, told the Guardian.

“If censorship keeps spreading, silence won’t save us. Floridians must speak out now.”

Book bans have been rising at a rapid rate across the US since 2021, but this latest wave comes after increased pressure from the state board of education in Florida.

The board issued a harsh warning to the Hillsborough county school district in May, saying that if they didn’t remove “pornographic” titles from their library, formal legal action could ensue. More than 600 books were pulled as a result, and the process was expected to cost the district $350,000.

The books taken off the school shelves included The Diary of Anne Frank and What Girls Are Made of by Elana K Arnold. None of them were under formal review by the district, and they hadn’t been flagged by local parents as potentially inappropriate. Parents with children in the school system even had the opportunity to opt their children out of a particular reading, without removing them from the class for everyone.

PEN called the board of education’s mass removal in Hillsborough county a “state-driven censorship”, and concluded “it is a calculated effort to consolidate power through fear, to bypass legal precedent, and to silence diverse voices in Florida’s public schools,” in their press release.

Fearing similar retribution, nine surrounding school districts have taken proactive measures, pulling books which they are worried could cause similar controversy. This includes Columbia, Escambia, Orange and Osceola, who have followed suit and quietly complied, probably to avoid similar state retaliation.

“Censorship advocates are playing a long game, and making Hillsborough county public schools bend the knee is a huge win for them,” said Rachel Doyle, who goes by “Reads with Rachel” on social media.

Doyle has two children in the Hillsborough school district system and is frustrated that they are being used as political pawns. She feels that her voice has been erased by far-right groups like Moms for Liberty and that parental rights groups do not have her kids’ best interests in mind.

“I do not want or need a special interest group or a ‘concerned citizen’ opting out for me,” Doyle said. “Once Florida becomes a place where this is the norm entirely, other states will follow.”

In Escambia county, one of the nine school districts that have taken books off their library shelves after the Hillsborough removal campaign, 400 titles have been removed without review. These include I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, and Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, a satirical anti-war novel centered around a prisoner of war in Dresden after the Allied bombings in the second world war.

What is happening in Florida is part of a broader, nationwide censorship drive fueled by conservative backlash against teachings about race, gender and diversity.

Unsurprisingly, red states on average have seen higher instances of banned reading materials, with Florida accounting for 4,561 cases of prohibited titles this year, spanning 33 school districts.

These bans often target authors of color, female writers and members of the LGBTQ+ community. Books that educate about any of these experiences, or that document historical periods, are the recipients of frequent censorship attacks.

Rob Sanders, the author of several acclaimed children’s books like Ruby Rose and Peaceful Fights for Equal Rights, and a former Hillsborough county educator, has seen many challenges to his books in Florida and beyond.

“If we eliminate every book that tells a story that is different than the life experiences of an individual or a family, there will be no books left in the library,” Sanders said.

“As an author, the best thing I can do for children is to keep writing books that tell the truth and that celebrate the wonderful diversity in our world.”