Join Our Livestream: Inside the AI Copyright Battles; Wired, July 11, 2025

Reece Rogers Wired ; Join Our Livestream: Inside the AI Copyright Battles

"WHAT'S GOING ON right now with the copyright battles over artificial intelligence? Many lawsuits regarding generative AI’s training materials were initially filed back in 2023, with decisions just now starting to trickle out. Whether it’s Midjourney generating videos of Disney characters, like Wall-E brandishing a gun, or an exit interview with a top AI lawyer as he left Meta, WIRED senior writer Kate Knibbs has been following this fight for years—and she’s ready to answer your questions.

Bring all your burning questions about the AI copyright battles to WIRED’s next, subscriber-only livestream scheduled for July 16 at 12pm ET / 9am PT, hosted by Reece Rogers with Kate Knibbs. The event will be streamed right here. For subscribers who are not able to join, a replay of the livestream will be available after the event."

Viewpoint: Don’t let America’s copyright crackdown hand China global AI leadership; Grand Forks Herald, July 5, 2025

 Kent Conrad and Saxby Chambliss , Grand Forks Herald; Viewpoint: Don’t let America’s copyright crackdown hand China global AI leadership

[Kip Currier: The assertion by anti-AI regulation proponents, like the former U.S. congressional authors of this think-piece, that requiring AI tech companies to secure permission and pay for AI training data will kill or hobble U.S. AI entrepreneurship is hyperbolic catastrophizing. AI tech companies can license training data from creators who are willing to participate in licensing frameworks. Such frameworks already exist for music copyrights, for example. AI tech companies just don't want to pay for something if they can get it for free.

AI tech companies would never permit users to scrape up, package, and sell their IP content for free. Copyright holders shouldn't be held to a different standard and be required to let tech companies monetize their IP-protected works without permission and compensation.]

Excerpt]

"If these lawsuits succeed, or if Congress radically rewrites the law, it will become nearly impossible for startups, universities or mid-size firms to develop competitive AI tools."

Two Courts Rule On Generative AI and Fair Use — One Gets It Right; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), June 26, 2025

TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Two Courts Rule On Generative AI and Fair Use — One Gets It Right

 "Gen-AI is spurring the kind of tech panics we’ve seen before; then, as now, thoughtful fair use opinions helped ensure that copyright law served innovation and creativity. Gen-AI does raise a host of other serious concerns about fair labor practices and misinformation, but copyright wasn’t designed to address those problems. Trying to force copyright law to play those roles only hurts important and legal uses of this technology.

In keeping with that tradition, courts deciding fair use in other AI copyright cases should look to Bartz, not Kadrey."

The problems with California’s pending AI copyright legislation; Brookings, June 30, 2025

John Villasenor, Brookings; The problems with California’s pending AI copyright legislation

 "California’s pending bill, AB-412, is a well-intentioned but problematic approach to addressing artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright currently moving through the state’s legislature. If enacted into law, it would undermine innovation in generative AI (GenAI) not only in California but also nationally, as it would impose onerous requirements on both in-state and out-of-state developers that make GenAI models available in California. 

The extraordinary capabilities of GenAI are made possible by the use of extremely large sets of training data that often include copyrighted content. AB-412 arose from the very reasonable concerns that rights owners have in understanding when and how their content is being used for building GenAI models. But the bill imposes a set of unduly burdensome and unworkable obligations on GenAI developers. It also favors large rights owners, which will be better equipped than small rights owners to pursue the litigation contemplated by the bill."

The US Copyright Office is wrong about artificial intelligence; The Hill, June 30, 2025

THINH H. NGUYEN AND DEREK E. BAMBAUER, The Hill ; The US Copyright Office is wrong about artificial intelligence

"AI is too important to allow copyright to impede its progress, especially as America seeks to maintain its global competitiveness in tech innovation."

No One Is in Charge at the US Copyright Office; Wired, June 27, 2025

KATE KNIBBS , Wired; 

No One Is in Charge at the US Copyright Office

"It’s a tumultuous time for copyright in the United States, with dozens of potentially economy-shaking AI copyright lawsuits winding through the courts. It’s also the most turbulent moment in the US Copyright Office’s history. Described as “sleepy” in the past, the Copyright Office has taken on new prominence during the AI boom, issuing key rulings about AI and copyright. It also hasn’t had a leader in more than a month...

As the legality of the ouster is debated, the reality within the office is this: There’s effectively nobody in charge. And without a leader actually showing up at work, the Copyright Office is not totally business-as-usual; in fact, there’s debate over whether the copyright certificates it’s issuing could be challenged."

The Fight Over AI Is Just Beginning, and Artists Like Elton John Are Leading the Way; Billboard, June 18, 2025

ROBERT LEVINE, Billboard ;The  Fight Over AI Is Just Beginning, and Artists Like Elton John Are Leading the Way

Global AI: Compression, Complexity, and the Call for Rigorous Oversight; ABA SciTech Lawyer, May 9, 2025

Joan Rose Marie Bullock, ABA SciTech Lawyer; Global AI: Compression, Complexity, and the Call for Rigorous Oversight

"Equally critical is resisting haste. The push to deploy AI, whether in threat detection or data processing, often outpaces scrutiny. Rushed implementations, like untested algorithms in critical systems, can backfire, as any cybersecurity professional can attest from post-incident analyses. The maxim of “measure twice, cut once” applies here: thorough vetting trumps speed. Lawyers, trained in precedent, recognize the cost of acting without foresight; technologists, steeped in iterative testing, understand the value of validation. Prioritizing diligence over being first mitigates catastrophic failures of privacy breaches or security lapses that ripple worldwide."

Artificial Intelligence—Promises and Perils for Humans’ Rights; Harvard Law School Human Rights Program, June 10, 2025 10:30 AM EDT

 Harvard Law School Human Rights Program; Artificial Intelligence—Promises and Perils for Humans’ Rights

"In recent years, rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology, significantly accelerated by the development and deployment of deep learning and Large Language Models, have taken center stage in policy discussions and public consciousness. Amidst a public both intrigued and apprehensive about AI’s transformative potential across workplaces, families, and even broader political, economic, and geopolitical structures, a crucial conversation is emerging around its ethical, legal, and policy dimensions.

This webinar will convene a panel of prominent experts from diverse fields to delve into the critical implications of AI for humans and their rights. The discussion will broadly address the anticipated human rights harms stemming from AI’s increasing integration into society and explore potential responses to these challenges. A key focus will be on the role of international law and human rights law in addressing these harms, considering whether this legal framework can offer the appropriate tools for effective intervention."

Japan aims to lift intellectual property competitiveness via AI use; The Mainichi, June 3, 2025

 The Mainichi; Japan aims to lift intellectual property competitiveness via AI use

"The Japanese government said Tuesday it will seek to enhance the country's competitiveness in the area of intellectual property by promoting the use of artificial intelligence and attracting foreign talent.

In the intellectual property strategy for 2025, the country will take advantage of the international popularity of Japanese anime and the content of such movies that highlights local culture to help promote regional economies, expecting a total economic impact of around 1 trillion yen ($7.0 billion)."

WATCH: Is A.I. the new colonialism?; The Ink, May 27, 2025

 ANAND GIRIDHARADAS AND KAREN HAO, The Ink; WATCH: Is A.I. the new colonialism?

"We just got off a call with the technology journalist Karen Hao, the keenest chronicler of the technology that’s promising — or threatening — to reshape the world, who has a new book, Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI.

The book talks not just about artificial intelligence and what it might be, or its most visible spokesperson and what he might believe, but also about the way the tech industry titans resemble more and more the empires of old in their relentless resource extraction and exploitation of labor around the world, their take-no-prisoners competitiveness against supposedly “evil” pretenders, and their religious fervor for progress and even salvation. She also told us about what the future might look like if we get A.I. right, and the people who produce the data, the resources, and control the labor power can reassert their ownership and push back against these new empires to build a more humane and human future."

We're All Copyright Owners. Why You Need to Care About AI and Copyright; CNET, May 19, 2025

 Katelyn Chedraoui , CNET; We're All Copyright Owners. Why You Need to Care About AI and Copyright

"Most of us don't think about copyright very often in our daily lives. But in the age of generative AI, it has quickly become one of the most important issues in the development and outputs of chatbots and image and video generators. It's something that affects all of us because we're all copyright owners and authors...

What does all of this mean for the future?

Copyright owners are in a bit of a holding pattern for now. But beyond the legal and ethical implications, copyright in the age of AI raises important questions about the value of creative work, the cost of innovation and the ways in which we need or ought to have government intervention and protections. 

There are two distinct ways to view the US's intellectual property laws, Mammen said. The first is that these laws were enacted to encourage and reward human flourishing. The other is more economically focused; the things that we're creating have value, and we want our economy to be able to recognize that value accordingly."

RIP American innovation; The Washington Post, May 12, 2025

 Bina Venkataraman, The Washington Post; RIP American innovation

"That U.S. businesses have led the recent revolution in artificial intelligence is owed to the decades of research supported by the U.S. government in computing, neuroscience, autonomous systems, biology and beyond that far precedes those companies’ investments. Virtually the entire U.S. biotech industry — which brought us treatments for diabetes, breast cancer and HIV — has its roots in publicly funded research. Even a small boost to NIH funding has been shown to increase overall patents for biotech and pharmaceutical companies...

Giving out grants for what might look frivolous or wasteful on the surface is a feature, not a bug, of publicly funded research. Consider that Agriculture Department and NIH grants to study chemicals in wild yamsled to cortisone and medical steroids becoming widely affordable. Or that knowing more about the fruit fly has aided discoveries related to human aging, Parkinson’s disease and cancer.

For obvious reasons, companies don’t tend to invest in shared scientific knowledge that then allows lots of innovation to flourish. That would mean spending money on something that does not reap quick rewards just for that particular company.

Current business trends are more likely to help kill the U.S. innovation engine. A growing share of the country’s research and development is now being carried out by big, old companies, as opposed to start-ups and universities — and, in the process, the U.S. as a whole is spending more on R&D without getting commensurately more economic growth."

Democrats press Trump on Copyright Office chief’s removal; The Hill, May 14, 2025

JARED GANS, The Hill ; Democrats press Trump on Copyright Office chief’s removal

"A half dozen Senate Democrats are pressing President Trump over his firing of the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, arguing that the move is illegal. 

“It threatens the longstanding independence and integrity of the Copyright Office, which plays a vital role in our economy,” the members said in the letter. “You are acting beyond your power and contrary to the intent of Congress as you seek to erode the legal and institutional independence of offices explicitly designed to operate outside the reach of partisan influence.” ...

The head of the Copyright Office is responsible for shaping federal copyright policy, and the senators argued the role is particularly crucial as the country confronts issues concerning the intersection of copyright law and technologies like artificial intelligence."

US Copyright Office found AI companies sometimes breach copyright. Next day its boss was fired; The Register, May 12, 2025

Simon Sherwood, The Register; US Copyright Office found AI companies sometimes breach copyright. Next day its boss was fired

"The head of the US Copyright Office has reportedly been fired, the day after agency concluded that builders of AI models use of copyrighted material went beyond existing doctrines of fair use.

The office’s opinion on fair use came in a draft of the third part of its report on copyright and artificial intelligence. The first part considered digital replicas and the second tackled whether it is possible to copyright the output of generative AI.

The office published the draft [PDF] of Part 3, which addresses the use of copyrighted works in the development of generative AI systems, on May 9th.

The draft notes that generative AI systems “draw on massive troves of data, including copyrighted works” and asks: “Do any of the acts involved require the copyright owners’ consent or compensation?”"

Trump fires Copyright Office director after report raises questions about AI training; TechCrunch, May 11, 2025

Anthony Ha , TechCrunch; Trump fires Copyright Office director after report raises questions about AI training

"As for how this ties into Musk (a Trump ally) and AI, Morelle linked to a pre-publication version of a U.S. Copyright Office report released this week that focuses on copyright and artificial intelligence. (In fact, it’s actually part three of a longer report.)

In it, the Copyright Office says that while it’s “not possible to prejudge” the outcome of individual cases, there are limitations on how much AI companies can count on “fair use” as a defense when they train their models on copyrighted content. For example, the report says research and analysis would probably be allowed.

“But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries,” it continues.

The Copyright Office goes on to suggest that government intervention “would be premature at this time,” but it expresses hope that “licensing markets” where AI companies pay copyright holders for access to their content “should continue to develop,” adding that “alternative approaches such as extended collective licensing should be considered to address any market failure.”

AI companies including OpenAI currently face a number of lawsuits accusing them of copyright infringement, and OpenAI has also called for the U.S. government to codify a copyright strategy that gives AI companies leeway through fair use.

Musk, meanwhile, is both a co-founder of OpenAI and of a competing startup, xAI (which is merging with the former Twitter). He recently expressed support for Square founder Jack Dorsey’s call to “delete all IP law.”"

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Part 3: Generative AI Training, Pre-Publication; U.S. Copyright Office, May 2025

U.S. Copyright Office; Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Part 3: Generative AI Training, Pre-Publication

Copyright alone cannot protect the future of creative work; Brookings, May 1, 2025

Mark MacCarthy , Brookings; Copyright alone cannot protect the future of creative work

"AI-generated content is nowhere near as good today as the output of skilled journalists, scriptwriters, videographers, photographers, commercial designers, and other creative workers. But the AI technology is getting there. Content producers will soon be able to use AI systems to generate at least some content that used to be generated without any AI assistance. Prompt engineers will work together with traditional content creators to guide new systems of content production. The promise of the new technology is that this output will be satisfactory and maybe even superior for a wide variety of purposes at a fraction of the cost."

AI and the visual arts: The case for copyright protection; Brookings, April 18, 2025

Judy Wang and  Nicol Turner Lee , Brookings; AI and the visual arts: The case for copyright protection

"Looking ahead  

As AI-generated art continues to reshape the creative landscape, the legal and economic challenges surrounding copyright, authorship, and enforcement will only grow more complex. Ongoing lawsuits, reactions from artists, and market shifts highlight the struggle to define human authorship and protect artists’ rights in an era where AI-generated works hold significant commercial value, but lack clear copyright protections. With increasing pressure on legislative and regulatory bodies to address these issues, the future of AI-generated art will depend on policies that balance innovation with fair compensation and safeguards for human creativity.  

While we await the final part of the Copyright Office’s report, which will determine the legal implications of training AI on copyrighted data, the more pressing determinant of fair use in GenAI training may come from the courts. Yet, regardless of the outcome, the Copyright Office should transcend its passive regulatory guidance and actively develop new mechanisms to distinguish human-authored elements from AI-generated ones to enforce its present guidance. In addition, the office must think creatively about flexible frameworks that can account for future, more nuanced and complex modes of collaboration between human and GenAI systems. This may require stronger disclosure requirements, improved detection methods, and a reexamination of what constitutes meaningful human authorship in an increasing AI-involved creative process.   

Further, artists, tech companies, and policymakers must be brought to the table to ensure copyright law reflects the newest collaborations in AI and art, protects human creativity, and accommodates technological progress. Without safeguards, the rapid influx of AI into the art market could lead to a systemic devaluation of human original authorship and growing precarity in the creative field. The future of AI-generated art hinges on such governance. "

Why Musk and Dorsey want to ‘delete all IP law’; The Washington Post, April 15, 2025

Analysis by Gerrit De Vynck

 and 

Will Oremus

with research by 

Andrea Jiménez

 , The Washington Post; Why Musk and Dorsey want to ‘delete all IP law’

"Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter and CEO of Square, posted a cryptic and drastic demand on Elon Musk’s X over the weekend: “delete all IP law.” The post drew a quick reply from Mr. X himself: “I agree.”

Musk’s laconic response amplified Dorsey’s post to his 220 million followers and sparked a debate that drew in a cast of characters including Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, tech lawyer and former vice presidential candidate Nicole Shanahan, novelist Walter Kirn, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller and the technologist and early Twitter developer Evan Henshaw-Plath, a.k.a. Rabble, among others...

Serious policy idea or not, the concord between Dorsey and Musk highlights how the debate over AI and copyright law is coming to a head in Silicon Valley.

How it’s resolved will have major ramifications for the tech companies, creative people and their livelihoods and the overall AI race."