‘Occasionally a picture can change the course of history’: 33 scandalous photos that shocked the world; The Guardian, April 4, 2026

Gaby Hinsliff, The Guardian; ‘Occasionally a picture can change the course of history’: 33 scandalous photos that shocked the world 

"The Bullingdon Club photograph, 1987

By Rona Marsden

In 2007, the Mail on Sunday published a photograph taken 20 years earlier: a group portrait of the Bullingdon Club’s class of 1987. Ten young members appear in the bespoke uniform of the exclusive all-male “dining club” at the University of Oxford. Among them are two future luminaries of the Conservative party: David Cameron (standing, second left) and Boris Johnson (seated on the right).

The club’s reputation as a drinking society for badly behaved posh boys – in 1987, a plant pot was thrown out of a window during a Bullingdon party – made the photo a source of embarrassment for Cameron, then leader of the opposition. “We do things when we are young that we deeply regret,” he said in 2009.

Soon after, the company that holds the copyright for the image withdrew permission to republish it. This painting by Oxford-based artist Rona Marsden was commissioned by BBC Newsnight as an alternative. The image remains a striking illustration of the elitism of Britain’s ruling class, and the vast inequality within the country. GS"

Q&A: The UK’s Copyright Report - A Gift to Creators, a Problem for AI; JD Supra, March 27, 2026

 Oliver Howley, JD Supra; Q&A: The UK’s Copyright Report - A Gift to Creators, a Problem for AI

"The UK Government has released its long-awaited copyright report, framed as an attempt to reconcile the competing interests of creators, technology companies and the wider innovation ecosystem. Rightsholders will welcome it, while the UK’s AI sector will find less comfort.

Two core policy decisions (on training data and on the ownership of AI-generated outputs) mark a shift away from earlier, more developer-friendly proposals. Both decisions leave significant questions unanswered: how AI developers can lawfully assemble training data at scale, what happens to content produced with minimal human input, and whether the UK’s current posture is sustainable in a world where capital and training runs are increasingly mobile.

In this Q&A, Oliver Howley, partner in Proskauer’s TMT Group and one of The Lawyer’s 2026 Hot 100, unpacks what the report says on these two decisions, what it leaves open, and what it means for developers, investors and rightsholders navigating the uncertainty ahead."

UK reverses course on AI copyright position after backlash; Engadget, March 18, 2026

Will Shanklin , Engadget; UK reverses course on AI copyright position after backlash

"halk up a win for creative artists against AI companies. On Wednesday, the UK government abandoned its previous position on copyrighted works. It’s currently working on a data bill that, if unaltered, would have allowed AI companies like Google and OpenAI to train models on copyrighted materials without consent. Artists and other copyright holders would only have been offered a mere opt-out clause.

After significant backlash, the UK backed off from that position. "We have listened," Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said on Wednesday. However, the government’s new stance is, well, not a stance at all. It currently "no longer has a preferred option" about how to handle the issue.

Still, backpedaling from its previous position is viewed as a win for artists. UK Music CEO Tom Kiehl described the decision as "a major victory," while promising to work with the government on the next steps."

UK to rule out sweeping AI copyright overhaul; Politico, March 11, 2026

JOSEPH BAMBRIDGE, Politico; UK to rule out sweeping AI copyright overhaul 

The U.K. will rule out making creatives actively opt out of having their copyrighted material scraped by AI companies.

"The U.K. government will rule out sweeping reform of its copyright laws in a highly-anticipated policy update next week, according to three people briefed on government thinking and granted anonymity to speak freely. 

The people said the update, due by March 18, will state the government does not plan to take forward work on an “opt out” model, whereby rights holders would have to explicitly say they do not want their work used to train AI models. 

It comes amid intense pressure from rights holders and lawmakers not to pursue the “opt out” policy. The government previously said this was its “preferred option” to facilitate AI innovation in the U.K., before ministers were forced to row back."

The Guardian view on changes to copyright laws: authors should be protected over big tech; The Guardian, March 13, 2026

Editorial , The Guardian; The Guardian view on changes to copyright laws: authors should be protected over big tech

"In a scene that might have come from a dystopian novel, books were being stamped with “Human Authored” logos at this week’s London Book Fair. The Society of Authors described its labelling scheme as “an important sticking plaster to protect and promote human creativity in lieu of AI labelled content in the marketplace”.

Visitors to the fair were also being given copies of Don’t Steal This Book, an anthology of about 10,000 writers including Nobel laureate Kazuo Ishiguro, Malorie Blackman, Jeanette Winterson and Richard Osman, in which the pages are completely blank. The back cover states: “The UK government must not legalise book theft to benefit AI companies.” The message is clear: writers have had enough.

The fair comes the week before the government is due to deliver its progress report on AI and copyright, after proposals for a relaxation of existing laws caused outrage last year. Philippa Gregory, the novelist, described the plans for an “opt-out” policy, which puts the onus on writers to refuse permission for their work to be trawled, as akin to putting a sign on your front door asking burglars to pass by...

A House of Lords report published last week lays out two possible futures: one in which the UK “becomes a world-leading home for responsible, legalised artificial intelligence (AI) development” and another in which it continues “to drift towards tacit acceptance of large-scale, unlicensed use of creative content”. One scenario protects UK artists, the other benefits global tech companies. To avoid a world of empty content, the choice is clear."

Thousands of authors publish ‘empty’ book in protest over AI using their work; The Guardian, March 10, 2026

Dan Milmo, The Guardian; Thousands of authors publish ‘empty’ book in protest over AI using their work

"Thousands of authors including Kazuo Ishiguro, Philippa Gregory and Richard Osman have published an “empty” book to protest against AI firms using their work without permission.

About 10,000 writers have contributed to Don’t Steal This Book, in which the only content is a list of their names. Copies of the work are being distributed to attenders at the London book fair on Tuesday, a week before the UK government is due to issue an assessment on the economic cost of proposed changes in copyright law."

Iceland Defeats Iceland: A U.K. Supermarket Ends a Trademark Dispute; The New York Times, March 5, 2026

Jenny Gross , The New York Times; Iceland Defeats Iceland: A U.K. Supermarket Ends a Trademark Dispute

"Iceland, the Nordic nation, has prevailed over Iceland, the British supermarket chain specializing in frozen foods, ending a decadelong legal dispute over the supermarket’s exclusive rights to the “Iceland” name.

The trademark disagreement culminated this week when Richard Walker, the executive chairman of the grocery chain, said he would not appeal a European Union court decision that ruled in favor of the Icelandic government and canceled the chain’s trademark for “Iceland.”"

The Guardian view on the BBC World Service: this is London calling; The Guardian, February 13, 2026

 Editorial,The Guardian; The Guardian view on the BBC World Service: this is London calling

[Kip Currier: This is the "money quote" for me in this persuasive Guardian Editorial on supporting the BBC World Service:

Accurate journalism is the strongest weapon in the war of information.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/13/the-guardian-view-on-the-bbc-world-service-this-is-london-calling]

With just seven weeks before its funding runs out, the UK’s greatest cultural asset and most trusted international news organisation must be supported

"The programmes will neither be very interesting nor very good,” said the then BBC director general John Reith, when he launched its Empire Service in December 1932. Nearly a century later, the BBC World Service, as it is now known, broadcasts in 43 languages, reaches 313 million people a week and is one of the UK’s most influential cultural assets. It is also a lifeline for millions. “Perhaps Britain’s greatest gift to the world” in the 20th century, as Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, once put it.

But this week Tim Davie, the corporation’s director general, announced that the World Service will run out of funding in just seven weeks. Most of its £400m budget comes from the licence fee, although the Foreign Office – which funded it entirely until 2014 – contributed £137m in the last year. The funding arrangement with the Foreign Office finishes at the end of March. There is no plan for what happens next.

Meanwhile, Russia and China are pouring billions into state-run media. And American news organisations are crumbling under the Trump administration. Last week the Washington Post axed 300 jobs including its Ukraine reporter, and hundreds were lost at Voice of America, the closest US equivalent to the BBC, last year.

Although some question why licence-fee payers should subsidise services largely consumed abroad, it is also loved by many at home. In the small hours, it is a window on a dark world, an alternative to doomscrolling and a pushback against parochialism. Jeremy Paxman summed it up when he compared the World Service to a cords- and cardigan-wearing “ageing uncle who’s seen it all. It has a style that makes understatement seem like flamboyance”. But we should not allow this cosy, slightly fusty image to obscure its purpose.

For many it is not just life-enhancing, but life‑saving. Last month, during the internet blackout in Iran, the BBC’s Persian service provided additional radio programmes over shortwave and medium wave. Emergency services were also launched in response to conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, Gaza and Sudan, and after the earthquake in Myanmar. It remains the only international news organisation still broadcasting inside Afghanistan, setting up an education programme for Afghan children in 2024.

But it has been beleaguered by cuts, closures and job losses. In 2022, radio broadcasts in 10 languages including Arabic, Persian, Chinese and Bengali were replaced by digital services, a decision criticised for disproportionately affecting women, who rely most on radios. Wherever the BBC has been forced to withdraw – for financial or political pressures – propaganda has been quick to fill the gap.

No one doubts the World Service’s value as an instrument of soft power. But, as BBC bosses argue, it is also part of our national security. Accurate journalism is the strongest weapon in the war of information. The World Service must not be allowed to stumble into decline. Mr Davie is right – if optimistic – to urge the government to back it decisively and urgently.

During the second world war, radio was “scattering human voices into the darkness of Europe”, Penelope Fitzgerald wrote in her 1980 novel Human Voices, based on her time working for the BBC. Amid the AI noise and disinformation, the World Service must be enabled to keep scattering human voices in our own dark times."

X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok; BBC, February 3, 2026

 Liv McMahon, BBC; X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok

"The French offices of Elon Musk's X have been raided by the Paris prosecutor's cyber-crime unit, as part of an investigation into suspected offences including unlawful data extraction and complicity in the possession of child pornography.

The prosecutor's office also said both Musk and former X chief executive Linda Yaccarino had been summoned to appear at hearings in April.

In a separate development, the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) announced a probe into Musk's AI tool, Grok, over its "potential to produce harmful sexualised image and video content."

X is yet to respond to either investigation - the BBC has approached it for comment."

Grok blocked from undressing images in places where it’s illegal, X says; AP, January 15, 2026

 ELAINE KURTENBACH , AP; Grok blocked from undressing images in places where it’s illegal, X says

"Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok won’t be able to edit photos to portray real people in revealing clothing in places where that is illegal, according to a statement posted on X. 

The announcement late Wednesday followed a global backlash over sexualized images of women and children, including bans and warnings by some governments. 

The pushback included an investigation announced Wednesday by the state of California, the U.S.'s most populous, into the proliferation of nonconsensual sexually explicit material produced using Grok that it said was harassing women and girls.

Initially, media queries about the problem drew only the response, “legacy media lies.” 

Musk’s company, xAI, now says it will geoblock content if it violates laws in a particular place...

Malaysia and Indonesia took legal action and blocked access to Grok, while authorities in the Philippines said they were working to do the same, possibly within the week. The U.K. and European Union were investigating potential violations of online safety laws."

Britain seeks 'reset' in copyright battle between AI and creators; Reuters, January 13, 2026

Reuters; Britain seeks 'reset' in copyright battle between AI and creators

"British technology minister Liz Kendall said on Tuesday the government was seeking a "reset" on plans to overhaul copyright rules to accommodate artificial intelligence, pledging to protect creators while unlocking AI's economic potential.

Creative industries worldwide are grappling with legal and ethical challenges posed by AI systems that generate original content after being trained on popular works, often without compensating the original creators."

 

Government's AI consultation finds just 3% support copyright exception; The Bookseller, December 15, 2025

MAIA SNOW, The Bookseller ; Government's AI consultation finds just 3% support copyright exception

"The initial results of the consultation found that the majority of respondents (88%) backed licences being required in all cases where data was being used for AI training. Just 3% of respondents supported the government’s preferred options, which would allow data mining by AI companies and require rights holders to opt-out."

I called my recipe book Sabzi – vegetables. But the name was trademarked. And my legal ordeal began; The Guardian, December 4, 2025

Yasmin Khan, The Guardian ; I called my recipe book Sabzi – vegetables. But the name was trademarked. And my legal ordeal began

"Vegetables, in my experience, rarely cause controversy. Yet last month I found myself in the middle of a legal storm over who gets to own the word sabzi – the Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Persian, Dari and Pashto word for cooked veg or fresh greens. It was a story as absurd as it was stressful, a chain of delis threatened me with legal action over the title of a book I had spent years creating. But what began as a personal legal headache soon morphed into something bigger, a story about how power and privilege still dominate conversations about cultural ownership in the UK.

When the email first landed in my inbox, I assumed it must be a wind-up. My editor at Bloomsbury had forwarded a solicitor’s letter addressed to me personally, care of my publishers. As I read it, my stomach dropped. A deli owner from Cornwall accused me of infringing her intellectual property over my cookbook Sabzi: Fresh Vegetarian Recipes for Every Day. Why? Because in 2022, she had trademarked the word sabzi to use for her business and any future products, including a cookbook she hoped to write one day.

My jaw clenched as I pored over pages of legal documentation, written in the punitive and aggressive tone of a firm gearing up for a fight. I was accused of “misrepresentation” (copying the deli’s brand), damaging its business and affecting its future growth, and they demanded detailed commercial reports about my work, including sales revenue, stock numbers and distribution contracts – information so intrusive that it felt like an audit. Buried in the legal jargon was a line that shook me. They reserved the right to seek the “destruction” of all items relating to their infringement claim. Reading the threat of my book being pulped was nothing short of devastating. It was also utterly enraging.

Because sabzi isn’t some cute exotic brand name, it’s part of the daily lexicon of more than a billion people across cultures and borders. In south Asia, it simply means cooked vegetables."

Two AI copyright cases, two very different outcomes – here’s why; The Conversation, December 1, 2025

Hayleigh Bosher, Reader in Intellectual Property Law, Brunel University of London , The Conversation; Two AI copyright cases, two very different outcomes – here’s why

"Artificial intelligence companies and the creative industries are locked in an ongoing battle, being played out in the courts. The thread that pulls all these lawsuits together is copyright.

There are now over 60 ongoing lawsuits in the US where creators and rightsholders are suing AI companies. Meanwhile, we have recently seen decisions in the first court cases from the UK and Germany – here’s what happened in those...

Although the circumstances of the cases are slightly different, the heart of the issue was the same. Do AI models reproduce copyright-protected content in their training process and in generating outputs? The German court decided they do, whereas the UK court took a different view.

Both cases could be appealed and others are underway, so things may change. But the ending we want to see is one where AI and the creative industries come together in agreement. This would preferably happen with the use of copyright licences that benefit them both.

Importantly, it would also come with the consent of – and fair payment to – creators of the content that makes both their industries go round."

Minister indicates sympathy for artists in debate over AI and copyright; The Guardian, November 23, 2025

 Robert Booth, The Guardian; Minister indicates sympathy for artists in debate over AI and copyright

 "The technology secretary, Liz Kendall, has indicated she is sympathetic to artists’ demands not to have their copyrighted works scraped by AI companies without payment and said she wanted to “reset” the debate.

In remarks that suggest a change in approach from her predecessor, Peter Kyle, who had hoped to require artists to actively opt out of having their work ingested by generative AI systems, she said “people rightly want to get paid for the work that they do” and “we have to find a way that both sectors can grow and thrive in future”.

The government has been consulting on a new intellectual property framework for AI which, in the case of the most common large language models (LLMs), requires vast amounts of training data to work effectively.

The issue has sparked impassioned protests from some of Britain’s most famous artists. This month Paul McCartney released a silent two-minute 45 second track of an empty studio on an album protesting against copyright grabs by AI firms as part of a campaign also backed by Kate Bush, Sam Fender, the Pet Shop Boys and Hans Zimmer."

Paul McCartney joins music industry protest against AI with silent track; The Guardian, November 17, 2025

 Robert Booth, The Guardian ; Paul McCartney joins music industry protest against AI with silent track

"At two minutes 45 seconds it’s about the same length as With a Little Help From My Friends. But Paul McCartney’s first new recording in five years lacks the sing-along tune and jaunty guitar chops because there’s barely anything there.

The former Beatle, arguably Britain’s greatest living songwriter, is releasing a track of an almost completely silent recording studio as part of a music industry protest against copyright theft by artificial intelligence companies.

In place of catchy melodies and evocative lyrics there is only quiet hiss and the odd clatter. It suggests that if AI companies unfairly exploit musicians’ intellectual property to train their generative AI models, the creative ecosystem will be wrecked and original music silenced.

McCartney, 83 and currently touring North America, has added the track to the B-side of an LP called Is This What We Want?, which is filled with other silent recordings and will be pressed on vinyl and released later this month."

Getty Images v. Stability AI- Intellectual Property Rights in the Age of Generative AI; The National Law Journal, November 14, 2025

Nathan Smith, Anita Hodea Katten   , The National Law Journal; Getty Images v. Stability AI- Intellectual Property Rights in the Age of Generative AI

"Key Takeaways

• Getty succeeded only in part, and narrowly, on its trade mark infringement claims. Findings were confined to specific examples of outputs from early versions of the Model involving "iStock" and "Getty Images" watermarks.
• Getty's secondary copyright infringement claim failed. The court held that the Model’s weights were not an "infringing copy" of Getty's works because the Model did not at any time contain or store a copy of the underlying Getty images.
• The judgment leaves critical questions unanswered relating to the relationship between IP rights and generative AI, particularly whether the use of copyright protected works to train AI models constitutes copyright infringement. It was hoped that these issues would be addressed by the court, but this element of the claim was withdrawn during trial.
• Looking ahead, the UK government's ongoing work with expert groups from both the creative and technology sectors will be closely watched, as it seeks to balance the protection of human creativity with technological innovation."

Stability AI’s legal win over Getty leaves copyright law in limbo; The Verge, November 5, 2025

Robert Hart , The Verge; Stability AI’s legal win over Getty leaves copyright law in limbo

"Stability AI, the creator of popular AI art tool Stable Diffusion, was largely victorious against Getty Images on Tuesday in a British legal battle over the material used to train AI models. The case originally looked set to produce a landmark ruling on AI and copyright in the UK, but it landed with a thud and failed to set any clear precedent for the big question dividing AI companies and creative firms: whether AI models need permission to train on copyrighted works.

The case, first filed in 2023, is the first major AI copyright claim to reach England’s High Court, though the verdict offers little clarity to other AI companies and rightsholders."

AI firm wins high court ruling after photo agency’s copyright claim; The Guardian, November 4, 2025

Robert Booth , The Guardian; AI firm wins high court ruling after photo agency’s copyright claim

"A London-based artificial intelligence firm has won a landmark high court case examining the legality of AI models using vast troves of copyrighted data without permission.

Stability AI, whose directors include the Oscar-winning film-maker behind Avatar, James Cameron, successfully resisted a claim from Getty Images that it had infringed the international photo agency’s copyright.

The ruling is seen as a blow to copyright owners’ exclusive right to reap the rewards of their work, with one senior lawyer, Rebecca Newman, a legal director at Addleshaw Goddard, warning it means “the UK’s secondary copyright regime is not strong enough to protect its creators”."

Larry Ellison Wants to Do Good, Do Research and Make a Profit; The New York Times, August 12, 2025

 Theodore Schleifer and Nicholas Kulish, The New York Times; Larry Ellison Wants to Do Good, Do Research and Make a Profit

"Mr. Ellison has rarely engaged with the community of Giving Pledge signers, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. He has cherished his autonomy and does not want to be influenced to support Mr. Gates’s causes, one of the people said, while also sensitive to any idea that he is backing off the pledge.

But the stakes of Mr. Ellison’s message on X are enormous. His fortune is about 10 times what it was when he signed the pledge as the software company he founded, Oracle, rides the artificial intelligence boom. Mr. Ellison controls a staggering 40-plus percent of the company’s stock...

“Oxford, Cambridge and the whole university sector are under pressure to capitalize on intellectual property because of long-running government policy belief that the U.K. has fallen behind economically,” said John Picton, an expert in nonprofit law at the University of Manchester."