Fair Use or Foul Play? The AI Fair Use Copyright Line; The National Law Review, July 2, 2025

 Jodi Benassi of McDermott Will & Emery  , The National Law Review; Fair Use or Foul Play? The AI Fair Use Copyright Line

"Practice note: This is the first federal court decision analyzing the defense of fair use of copyrighted material to train generative AI. Two days after this decision issued, another Northern District of California judge ruled in Kadrey et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03417, and concluded that the AI technology at issue in his case was transformative. However, the basis for his ruling in favor of Meta on the question of fair use was not transformation, but the plaintiffs’ failure “to present meaningful evidence that Meta’s use of their works to create [a generative AI engine] impacted the market” for the books."

The Court Battles That Will Decide if Silicon Valley Can Plunder Your Work; Slate, June 30, 2025

 BY NITISH PAHWA , Slate; The Court Battles That Will Decide if Silicon Valley Can Plunder Your Work

"Last week, two different federal judges in the Northern District of California made legal rulings that attempt to resolve one of the knottiest debates in the artificial intelligence world: whether it’s a copyright violation for Big Tech firms to use published books for training generative bots like ChatGPT. Unfortunately for the many authors who’ve brought lawsuits with this argument, neither decision favors their case—at least, not for now. And that means creators in all fields may not be able to stop A.I. companies from using their work however they please...

What if these copyright battles are also lost? Then there will be little in the way of stopping A.I. startups from utilizing all creative works for their own purposes, with no consideration as to the artists and writers who actually put in the work. And we will have a world blessed less with human creativity than one overrun by second-rate slop that crushes the careers of the people whose imaginations made that A.I. so potent to begin with."

US Supreme Court to review billion-dollar Cox Communications copyright case; Reuters, June 30, 2025

Blake Brittain, Reuters; US Supreme Court to review billion-dollar Cox Communications copyright case

 "The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide a copyright dispute between Cox Communications and a group of music labels following a judicial decision that threw out a $1 billion jury verdict against the internet service provider over alleged piracy of music by Cox customers.

The justices took up Cox's appeal of the lower court's decision that it was still liable for copyright infringement by users of its internet service despite the decision to overturn the verdict...

Cox spokesperson Todd Smith said the company was pleased that the Supreme Court "decided to address these significant copyright issues that could jeopardize internet access for all Americans and fundamentally change how internet service providers manage their networks."...

The labels appealed the 4th Circuit's decision that Cox did not have vicarious liability, a legal doctrine in which a party is found to have indirect liability for the actions of another party, in this case. The labels told the Supreme Court that the circuit court's decision was out of line with other decisions by federal appeals courts on vicarious liability."

An AI firm won a lawsuit for copyright infringement — but may face a huge bill for piracy; Los Angeles Times, June 27, 2025

 Michael Hiltzik , Los Angeles Times; An AI firm won a lawsuit for copyright infringement — but may face a huge bill for piracy

[Kip Currier: Excellent informative overview of some of the principal issues, players, stakes, and recent decisions in the ongoing AI copyright legal battles. Definitely worth 5-10 minutes of your time to read and reflect on.

A key take-away, derived from Judge Vince Chhabria's decision in last week's Meta win, is that:

Artists and authors can win their copyright infringement cases if they produce evidence showing the bots are affecting their market. Chhabria all but pleaded for the plaintiffs to bring some such evidence before him: 

“It’s hard to imagine that it can be fair use to use copyrighted books...to make billions or trillions of dollars while enabling the creation of a potentially endless stream of competing works that could significantly harm the market for those books.” 

But “the plaintiffs never so much as mentioned it,” he lamented.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-06-27/an-ai-firm-won-a-lawsuit-over-copyright-infringement-but-may-face-a-huge-bill-for-piracy]

[Excerpt]

"Anthropic had to acknowledge a troubling qualification in Alsup’s order, however. Although he found for the company on the copyright issue, he also noted that it had downloaded copies of more than 7 million books from online “shadow libraries,” which included countless copyrighted works, without permission. 

That action was “inherently, irredeemably infringing,” Alsup concluded. “We will have a trial on the pirated copies...and the resulting damages,” he advised Anthropic ominously: Piracy on that scale could expose the company to judgments worth untold millions of dollars...

“Neither case is going to be the last word” in the battle between copyright holders and AI developers, says Aaron Moss, a Los Angeles attorney specializing in copyright law. With more than 40 lawsuits on court dockets around the country, he told me, “it’s too early to declare that either side is going to win the ultimate battle.”...

With billions of dollars, even trillions, at stake for AI developers and the artistic community at stake, no one expects the law to be resolved until the issue reaches the Supreme Court, presumably years from now...

But Anthropic also downloaded copies of more than 7 million books from online “shadow libraries,” which include untold copyrighted works without permission. 

Alsup wrote that Anthropic “could have purchased books, but it preferred to steal them to avoid ‘legal/practice/business slog,’” Alsup wrote. (He was quoting Anthropic co-founder and CEO Dario Amodei.)...

Artists and authors can win their copyright infringement cases if they produce evidence showing the bots are affecting their market."...

The truth is that the AI camp is just trying to get out of paying for something instead of getting it for free. Never mind the trillions of dollars in revenue they say they expect over the next decade — they claim that licensing will be so expensive it will stop the march of this supposedly historic technology dead in its tracks.

Chhabria aptly called this argument “nonsense.” If using books for training is as valuable as the AI firms say they are, he noted, then surely a market for book licensing will emerge. That is, it will — if the courts don’t give the firms the right to use stolen works without compensation."

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."

Getty drops copyright allegations in UK lawsuit against Stability AI; AP, June 25, 2025

 KELVIN CHAN, AP; Getty drops copyright allegations in UK lawsuit against Stability AI

"Getty Images dropped copyright infringement allegations from its lawsuit against artificial intelligence company Stability AI as closing arguments began Wednesday in the landmark case at Britain’s High Court. 

Seattle-based Getty’s decision to abandon the copyright claim removes a key part of its lawsuit against Stability AI, which owns a popular AI image-making tool called Stable Diffusion. The two have been facing off in a widely watched court case that could have implications for the creative and technology industries."

Judge dismisses authors’ copyright lawsuit against Meta over AI training; AP, June 25, 2025

 MATT O’BRIEN AND BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP; Judge dismisses authors’ copyright lawsuit against Meta over AI training

"Although Meta prevailed in its request to dismiss the case, it could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory. In his 40-page ruling, Chhabria repeatedly indicated reasons to believe that Meta and other AI companies have turned into serial copyright infringers as they train their technology on books and other works created by humans, and seemed to be inviting other authors to bring cases to his court presented in a manner that would allow them to proceed to trial.

The judge scoffed at arguments that requiring AI companies to adhere to decades-old copyright laws would slow down advances in a crucial technology at a pivotal time. “These products are expected to generate billions, even trillions of dollars for the companies that are developing them. If using copyrighted works to train the models is as necessary as the companies say, they will figure out a way to compensate copyright holders for it.”

Anthropic’s AI copyright ‘win’ is more complicated than it looks; Fast Company, June 24, 2025

CHRIS STOKEL-WALKER, Fast Company;Anthropic’s AI copyright ‘win’ is more complicated than it looks

"And that’s the catch: This wasn’t an unvarnished win for Anthropic. Like other tech companies, Anthropic allegedly sourced training materials from piracy sites for ease—a fact that clearly troubled the court. “This order doubts that any accused infringer could ever meet its burden of explaining why downloading source copies from pirate sites that it could have purchased or otherwise accessed lawfully was itself reasonably necessary to any subsequent fair use,” Alsup wrote, referring to Anthropic’s alleged pirating of more than 7 million books.

That alone could carry billions in liability, with statutory damages starting at $750 per book—a trial on that issue is still to come.

So while tech companies may still claim victory (with some justification, given the fair use precedent), the same ruling also implies that companies will need to pay substantial sums to legally obtain training materials. OpenAI, for its part, has in the past argued that licensing all the copyrighted material needed to train its models would be practically impossible.

Joanna Bryson, a professor of AI ethics at the Hertie School in Berlin, says the ruling is “absolutely not” a blanket win for tech companies. “First of all, it’s not the Supreme Court. Secondly, it’s only one jurisdiction: The U.S.,” she says. “I think they don’t entirely have purchase over this thing about whether or not it was transformative in the sense of changing Claude’s output.”"

Study: Meta AI model can reproduce almost half of Harry Potter book; Ars Technica, June 20, 2025

TIMOTHY B. LEE  , Ars Techcnica; Study: Meta AI model can reproduce almost half of Harry Potter book

"In recent years, numerous plaintiffs—including publishers of books, newspapers, computer code, and photographs—have sued AI companies for training models using copyrighted material. A key question in all of these lawsuits has been how easily AI models produce verbatim excerpts from the plaintiffs’ copyrighted content.

For example, in its December 2023 lawsuit against OpenAI, The New York Times Company produced dozens of examples where GPT-4 exactly reproduced significant passages from Times stories. In its response, OpenAI described this as a “fringe behavior” and a “problem that researchers at OpenAI and elsewhere work hard to address.”

But is it actually a fringe behavior? And have leading AI companies addressed it? New research—focusing on books rather than newspaper articles and on different companies—provides surprising insights into this question. Some of the findings should bolster plaintiffs’ arguments, while others may be more helpful to defendants.

The paper was published last month by a team of computer scientists and legal scholars from Stanford, Cornell, and West Virginia University. They studied whether five popular open-weight models—three from Meta and one each from Microsoft and EleutherAI—were able to reproduce text from Books3, a collection of books that is widely used to train LLMs. Many of the books are still under copyright."

Copyright Cases Should Not Threaten Chatbot Users’ Privacy; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), June 23, 2025

TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Copyright Cases Should Not Threaten Chatbot Users’ Privacy

"Like users of all technologies, ChatGPT users deserve the right to delete their personal data. Nineteen U.S. States, the European Union, and a host of other countries already protect users’ right to delete. For years, OpenAI gave users the option to delete their conversations with ChatGPT, rather than let their personal queries linger on corporate servers. Now, they can’t. A badly misguided court order in a copyright lawsuit requires OpenAI to store all consumer ChatGPT conversations indefinitely—even if a user tries to delete them. This sweeping order far outstrips the needs of the case and sets a dangerous precedent by disregarding millions of users’ privacy rights.

The privacy harms here are significant. ChatGPT’s 300+ million users submit over 1 billion messages to its chatbots per day, often for personal purposes. Virtually any personal use of a chatbot—anything from planning family vacations and daily habits to creating social media posts and fantasy worlds for Dungeons and Dragons games—reveal personal details that, in aggregate, create a comprehensive portrait of a person’s entire life. Other uses risk revealing people’s most sensitive information. For example, tens of millions of Americans use ChatGPT to obtain medical and financial information. Notwithstanding other risks of these uses, people still deserve privacy rights like the right to delete their data. Eliminating protections for user-deleted data risks chilling beneficial uses by individuals who want to protect their privacy."

‘Wall-E With a Gun’: Midjourney Generates Videos of Disney Characters Amid Massive Copyright Lawsuit; Wired, June 20, 2025

Kate Knibbs, Reece Rogers , Wired; ‘Wall-E With a Gun’: Midjourney Generates Videos of Disney Characters Amid Massive Copyright Lawsuit

"MIDJOURNEY’S NEW AI-GENERATED video tool will produce animated clips featuring copyrighted characters from Disney and Universal, WIRED has found—including video of the beloved Pixar character Wall-E holding a gun."

Two Major Lawsuits Aim to Answer a Multi-Billion-Dollar Question: Can AI Train on Your Creative Work Without Permission?; The National Law Review, June 18, 2025

 Andrew R. Lee, Timothy P. Scanlan, Jr. of Jones Walker LLP , The National Law Review; Two Major Lawsuits Aim to Answer a Multi-Billion-Dollar Question: Can AI Train on Your Creative Work Without Permission?

"In a London courtroom, lawyers faced off in early June in a legal battle that could shape the future relationship between artificial intelligence and creative work. The case pits Getty Images, a major provider of stock photography, against Stability AI, the company behind the popular AI art generator, Stable Diffusion.

At the heart of the dispute is Getty's claim that Stability AI unlawfully used 12 million of its copyrighted images to train its AI model. The outcome of this case could establish a critical precedent for whether AI companies can use publicly available online content for training data or if they will be required to license it.

On the first day of trial, Getty's lawyer told the London High Court that the company “recognises that the AI industry overall may be a force for good,” but that did not justify AI companies “riding roughshod over intellectual property rights.”

A Key Piece of Evidence

A central component of Getty's case is the observation that Stable Diffusion's output sometimes includes distorted versions of the Getty Images watermark. Getty argues this suggests its images were not only used for training but are also being partially reproduced by the AI model.

Stability AI has taken the position that training an AI model on images constitutes a transformative use of that data. The argument is that teaching a machine from existing information is fundamentally different from direct copying."

ED SHEERAN’S ‘THINKING OUT LOUD’ COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT WON’T GO TO SUPREME COURT; Rolling Stone, June 16, 2025

 TOMÁS MIER, Rolling Stone; ED SHEERAN’S ‘THINKING OUT LOUD’ COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT WON’T GO TO SUPREME COURT

"Despite a plea from one of the people accusing Ed Sheeran of copying Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” the Supreme Court will not be taking on a copyright case around Sheeran’s hit, “Thinking Out Loud.” On Monday, the high court refused to take on the lawsuit claiming that Sheeran infringed on the copyright of Gaye’s song.

“No reasonable jury could find that the two songs, taken as a whole, are substantially similar in light of their dissimilar melodies and lyrics,” Judge Michael Park wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, per USA Today."

How Disney’s AI lawsuit could shift the future of entertainment; The Washington Post, June 11, 2025

 

Tatum Hunter

 and 

Will Oremus

, The Washington Post ; How Disney’s AI lawsuit could shift the future of entertainment

"The battle over the future of AI-generated content escalated on Wednesday as two Hollywood titans sued a fast-growing AI start-up for copyright infringement.

Disney and Universal, whose entertainment empires include Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel and Despicable Me, sued Midjourney, claiming it wrongfully trained its image-generating AI models on the studios’ intellectual property.

They are the first major Hollywood studios to file copyright infringement lawsuits, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing fight by artists, newspapers and content makers to stop AI firms from using their work as training data — or at least make them pay for it."

In first-of-its-kind lawsuit, Hollywood giants sue AI firm for copyright infringement; NPR, June 12, 2025

 Chloe Veltman, NPR; In first-of-its-kind lawsuit, Hollywood giants sue AI firm for copyright infringement

"n a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, entertainment companies Disney and Universal are suing AI firm Midjourney for copyright infringement.

The 110-page lawsuit, filed Wednesday in a U.S. district court in Los Angeles, includes detailed appendices illustrating the plaintiffs' claims with visual examples and alleges that Midjourney stole "countless" copyrighted works to train its AI engine in the creation of AI-generated images."

Disney, Universal File First Major Studio Lawsuit Against AI Company, Sue Midjourney for Copyright Infringement: ‘This Is Theft’; Variety, June 11, 2025

 Todd Spangler, Variety; Disney, Universal File First Major Studio Lawsuit Against AI Company, Sue Midjourney for Copyright Infringement: ‘This Is Theft’

"Disney and NBCU filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Midjourney, a generative AI start-up, alleging copyright infringement. The companies alleged that Midjourney’s own website “displays hundreds, if not thousands, of images generated by its Image Service at the request of its subscribers that infringe Plaintiffs’ Copyrighted Works.”

A copy of the lawsuit is at this link...

Disney and NBCU’s lawsuit includes images alleged to be examples of instances of Midjourney’s infringement. Those include an image of Marvel’s Deadpool and Wolverine (pictured above), Iron Man, Spider-Man, the Hulk and more; Star Wars’ Darth Vader, Yoda, R2-D2, C-3PO and Chewbacca; Disney’s Princess Elsa and Olaf from “Frozen”; characters from “The Simpsons”; Pixar’s Buzz Lightyear from “Toy Story” and Lightning McQueen from “Cars”; DreamWorks’ “How to Train Your Dragon”; and Universal‘s “Shrek” and the yellow Minions from the “Despicable Me” film franchise."

Getty Images Faces Off Against Stability in Court as First Major AI Copyright Trial Begins; PetaPixel, June 10, 2025

Matt Growcoot , PetaPixel; Getty Images Faces Off Against Stability in Court as First Major AI Copyright Trial Begins

"The Guardian notes that the trial will focus on specific photos taken by famous photographers. Getty plans to bring up photos of the Chicago Cubs taken by sports photographer Gregory Shamus and photos of film director Christopher Nolan taken by Andreas Rentz. 

All-in-all, 78,000 pages of evidence have been disclosed for the case and AI experts are being called in to give testimonies. Getty is also suing Stability AI in the United States in a parallel case. The trial in London is expected to run for three weeks and will be followed by a written decision from the judge at a later date."

Getty argues its landmark UK copyright case does not threaten AI; Reuters, June 9, 2025

Sam Tobin, Reuters; Getty argues its landmark UK copyright case does not threaten AI

 "Getty Images' landmark copyright lawsuit against artificial intelligence company Stability AI began at London's High Court on Monday, with Getty rejecting Stability AI's contention the case posed a threat to the generative AI industry.

Seattle-based Getty, which produces editorial content and creative stock images and video, accuses Stability AI of using its images to "train" its Stable Diffusion system, which can generate images from text inputs...

Creative industries are grappling with the legal and ethical implications of AI models that can produce their own work after being trained on existing material. Prominent figures including Elton John have called for greater protections for artists.

Lawyers say Getty's case will have a major impact on the law, as well as potentially informing government policy on copyright protections relating to AI."

It’s too expensive to fight every AI copyright battle, Getty CEO says; Ars Technica, May 28, 2025

 ASHLEY BELANGER , Ars Technica; It’s too expensive to fight every AI copyright battle, Getty CEO says

[Kip Currier: As of May 2025, New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) data values Getty Images at nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars.

So it's noteworthy and should give individual creators pause that even a company of that size is publicly acknowledging the financial realities of copyright litigation against AI tech companies like Stability AI.

Even if the courts should determine that AI tech companies can prevail on fair use grounds against copyright infringement claims, isn't there something fundamentally unfair and unethical about AI tech oligarchs being able to devour and digest everyone else's copyrighted works, and then alchemize that improperly-taken aggregation of creativity into new IP works that they can monetize, with no recompense given to the original creators?

Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they should be able to do it.

AI tech company leaders like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg et al would never stand for similar uses of their works without permission or compensation. 

Neither should creators. Quid pulchrum est (What's fair is fair).

If the courts do side with AI tech companies, new federal legislation may need to be enacted to provide protections for content creators from the AI tech companies that want and need their content to power up novel iterations of their AI tools via ever-increasing amounts of training data. 

In the current Congress, that's not likely to happen. But it may be possible after 2026 or 2028. If enough content creators make their voices heard through their grassroots advocacy and votes at the ballot box.]

[Excerpt]

"On Bluesky, a trial lawyer, Max Kennerly, effectively satirized Clegg and the whole AI industry by writing, "Our product creates such little value that it is simply not viable in the marketplace, not even as a niche product. Therefore, we must be allowed to unilaterally extract value from the work of others and convert that value into our profits."

Judge Hints Anthropic’s AI Training on Books Is Fair Use; Bloomberg Law, May 22, 2025

Annelise Levy

, Bloomberg Law; Judge Hints Anthropic’s AI Training on Books Is Fair Use

"A California federal judge is leaning toward finding Anthropic PBC violated copyright law when it made initial copies of pirated books, but that its subsequent uses to train their generative AI models qualify as fair use.

“I’m inclined to say they did violate the Copyright Act but the subsequent uses were fair use,” Judge William Alsup said Thursday during a hearing in San Francisco. “That’s kind of the way I’m leaning right now,” he said, but concluded the 90-minute hearing by clarifying that his decision isn’t final. “Sometimes I say that and change my mind."...

The first judge to rule will provide a window into how federal courts interpret the fair use argument for training generative artificial intelligence models with copyrighted materials. A decision against Anthropic could disrupt the billion-dollar business model behind many AI companies, which rely on the belief that training with unlicensed copyrighted content doesn’t violate the law."