Who owns ideas in the AI age?; Fortune, April 8, 2026

Francesca Cassidy , Fortune; Who owns ideas in the AI age?; David Shelley, CEO of Hachette’s U.K. and U.S. operations, on taking on Big Tech, defending copyright, and why the future of human creativity is at stake.

"Can you ever really own an idea?"

AI is dressing up greed as progress on creative rights; Financial Times, March 14, 2026

CAMILLA CAVENDISH, Financial Times; AI is dressing up greed as progress on creative rights

"At this week’s London Book Fair, a lot of people were walking around with one particular title wedged under their arms. Called Don’t Steal This Book, its pages are empty apart from the names of thousands of authors, including Kazuo Ishiguro and Richard Osman. It’s a chilling protest against the rampant theft of creative work by tech firms, which could leave future artists unable to earn a living."

Perspective: No copyright for AI-generated content; Northern Public Radio, March 13, 2026

David Gunkel, Northern Public Radio; Perspective: No copyright for AI-generated content

"What the courts actually decided is that neither the AI system nor the human who uses it counts as the author of the resulting work. Simply prompting ChatGPT or Claude to produce something isn’t considered the kind of creative activity that copyright law recognizes as authorship. And that creates an unexpected result. If neither the AI nor the human user is the author, then the work has no author at all. In effect, AI-generated images, music, and text become “orphan works”—creations that belong to no one. And that means that anyone can use them."

Celebrating the Public Domain; ABA, January 29, 2026

 Jennifer Jenkins and James Boyle, ABA ; Celebrating the Public Domain

"How does the public domain feed creativity? Here are just three examples. In 2025, you may have enjoyed Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, derived from Mary Shelley’s novel, or Wicked: For Good, derived from L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. From the literary realm in 2024, Percival Everett’s novel James reimagined Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of Jim, Huckleberry’s friend who is an escaped slave. The novel won the 2024 National Book Award and Kirkus Prize and was a finalist for the Booker Prize. As summed up by a New York Times review: “‘Huck Finn’ Is a Masterpiece. This Retelling Just Might Be, Too.”  

Mark Twain famously wanted copyright to last forever. If he had his wish, would his heirs have sued Everett? Thankfully, we did not have to find out, and Everett could publish James without such litigation. When author Alice Randall sought to revisit Gone with the Wind from the slaves’ perspective in The Wind Done Gone (2001), she was sued for copyright infringement. Gone with the Wind is copyrighted until 2032, and Randall only won the right to publish her work after a stressful and expensive lawsuit.  

The newly public domain works from 1930 also illustrate how the public domain nurtures creativity. One of the best exemplars is Disney itself, whose beloved works, from Snow White and Cinderella to The Jungle Book and Sleeping Beauty, have consistently built upon the public domain. In 2026, copyright expired over nine early Mickey Mouse films. One of the things that made them so popular was their ingenious reuse of music. At the time, synchronizing moving images with sound was still new, and Walt Disney (correctly) predicted that sound films were the future. Steamboat Willie had pioneered a technique that would even become known as “mickey mousing”—synchronizing music with what was occurring on screen."

Celebrating 250 years of discovery, creativity, and enterprise; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), March 2026

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), March 2026; Celebrating 250 years of discovery, creativity, and enterprise 

"In 1776, our nation’s founders declared independence based on three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Over the past 250 years, innovators from coast to coast have helped turn those ideals into reality. Their ingenuity made our world safer, advanced our technological progress, and created prosperity for both the country and their families.  

As America’s Innovation Agency, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) protects the inventions and brands that drive our economy forward. Join us as we explore the foundations of the intellectual property system in America, the history of patents and trademarks, and how innovation transforms our daily lives."

Essential Knowledge for Journalists Reporting on AI, Creativity and Copyright; Webinar, National Press Foundation: Thursday, February 19, 2026 12 PM - 1 PM EST

Webinar, National Press Foundation: Essential Knowledge for Journalists Reporting on AI, Creativity and Copyright 

"Generative AI is one of the biggest technological and cultural stories of our time – and one of the hardest to explain. As AI companies train models on news articles, books, images and music, reporters face tough questions about permission, transparency and fair use. Should AI companies pay when creative works are used to train their AI models? Where’s the line between innovation and theft?

The National Press Foundation will host a webinar to help journalists make sense of the evolving AI licensing landscape and report on it with clarity and confidence. We’ll unpack what “AI licensing” really means, how early one-off deals are turning into structured revenue-sharing systems, and why recent agreements in media and entertainment could shift the conversation from conflict to cooperation.

Join NPF and a panel of experts for a free online briefing from 12-1 p.m. ET, Feb. 19, 2026. The practical, forward-looking discussion examines how trust, creativity, and innovation can coexist as this new era unfolds and will equip journalists with plain-language explanations, real-world examples, and story angles that help readers understand why AI licensing matters to culture, innovation and the creative ecosystem they rely on every day."

Copyright and creativity in Episode 2 of the EUIPO Podcast; European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), January 28, 2026

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); Copyright and creativity in Episode 2 of the EUIPO Podcast

"Copyright and creativity in Episode 2 of the EUIPO Podcast

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has released the second episode of its podcast series ‘Creative Sparks: From inspiration to innovation’, focusing on copyright and the launch of the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre.

Titled “The idea makers: Europe’s new home for copyright”, the episode looks at how copyright supports creativity across Europe. From music, film and publishing to design, digital content and emerging technologies such as generative artificial intelligence.

It brings together institutional and creator perspectives through two guests: Véronique Delforge, copyright legal expert at the EUIPO, and Nathalie Boyer, actress, voice-over artist, Board member of ADAMI and President of the ADAMI Foundation for the Citizen Artist. They discuss creative innovation, why copyright remains essential in a rapidly evolving creative landscape and how creators can better understand and exercise their rights.

The conversation highlights the growing complexity of copyright in a digital and cross-border environment, the specific challenges faced by performers and cultural organisations, and the need for clarity, transparency and trusted information. Particular attention is given to the impact of streaming platforms and generative AI on creative works, authorship and remuneration.

The episode also introduces the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre, launched to bring together reliable information, research, tools and resources in one place.

Making IP closer

The podcast is part of the EUIPO’s determination to make intellectual property more accessible to all and engaging for Europeans, businesses and creators.

The EUIPO will issue monthly episodes and explore topics related to creativity and intellectual property as a tool to foster innovation and enhance competitiveness in EU in the digital era, among many others."

Search Engines, AI, And The Long Fight Over Fair Use; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 23, 2026

JOE MULLIN , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Search Engines, AI, And The Long Fight Over Fair Use

"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.

Long before generative AI, copyright holders warned that new technologies for reading and analyzing information would destroy creativity. Internet search engines, they argued, were infringement machines—tools that copied copyrighted works at scale without permission. As they had with earlier information technologies like the photocopier and the VCR, copyright owners sued.

Courts disagreed. They recognized that copying works in order to understand, index, and locate information is a classic fair use—and a necessary condition for a free and open internet.

Today, the same argument is being recycled against AI. It’s whether copyright owners should be allowed to control how others analyze, reuse, and build on existing works."

Blondie and Dagwood are entering the public domain, but Betty Boop still may be trapped in copyright jail; The Los Angeles Times, December 30, 2025

Michael Hiltzik, The Los Angeles Times; Blondie and Dagwood are entering the public domain, but Betty Boop still may be trapped in copyright jail

"Duke’s Jenkins refers to “the harm of the long term — so many works could have been rediscovered earlier.” Moreover, she says, “so many works don’t make it out of obscurity.” The long consignment to the wilderness thwarts “preservation, access, education, creative reuse, scholarship, etc., when most of the works are out of circulation and not benefiting any rights holders.”

Among other drawbacks, she notes, “films have disintegrated because preservationists can’t digitize them.” Many films from the 1930s are theoretically available to the public domain now, but not really because they’ve been lost forever.

What would be the right length of time? “We could have that same experience after a much shorter term,” Jenkins told me. “Looking back at works from the ‘70s and ‘80s has similar excitement for me.” Economic models, she adds, have placed the optimal term at about 35 years.

It’s proper to note that just because something is scheduled to enter the public domain, that doesn’t mean legal wrangling over its copyright protection is settled. 

With recurring characters, for instance, only the version appearing in a given threshold year enters the public domain 95 years later; subsequent alternations or enhancements retain protection until their term is up. That has led to courthouse disputes over just what changes are significant enough to retain copyright for those changes. 

“Copyrightable aspects of a character’s evolution that appear in later, still-protected works may remain off-limits until those later works themselves expire,” Los Angeles copyright lawyer Aaron Moss said."

Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and the Fight for User Rights: 2025 in Review; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), December 25, 2025

 TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and the Fight for User Rights: 2025 in Review

"A tidal wave of copyright lawsuits against AI developers threatens beneficial uses of AI, like creative expression, legal research, and scientific advancement. How courts decide these cases will profoundly shape the future of this technology, including its capabilities, its costs, and whether its evolution will be shaped by the democratizing forces of the open market or the whims of an oligopoly. As these cases finished their trials and moved to appeals courts in 2025, EFF intervened to defend fair use, promote competition, and protect everyone’s rights to build and benefit from this technology.

At the same time, rightsholders stepped up their efforts to control fair uses through everything from state AI laws to technical standards that influence how the web functions. In 2025, EFF fought policies that threaten the open web in the California State Legislature, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and beyond."

Betty Boop, Mickey Mouse works enter the public domain in 2026; Axios, December 26, 2025

 Josephine Walker, Axios; Betty Boop, Mickey Mouse works enter the public domain in 2026

"The public will be able to copy and reproduce thousands of copyrighted works from 1930 in the new year, including flirtatious flapper Betty Boop, nine additional Mickey Mouse cartoons and novels from Agatha Christie and William Faulkner.

Why it matters: Copyright violations can run up a hefty price tag — but when works enter the public domain, creatives can legally reimagine American classics.

What they're saying: "To tell new stories, we draw from older ones," Duke Law professors Jennifer Jenkins and James Boyle wrote in an annual survey of works entering the public domain.

"One work of art inspires another — that is how the public domain feeds creativity."

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."

Tech should help us be creative. AI rips our creativity away; The Guardian, November 21, 2025

 Dave Schilling, The Guardian ; Tech should help us be creative. AI rips our creativity away

"Advocates for AI art always throw the word “democratization” around, claiming that these machine tools remove the barriers for entry to creativity. Those barriers were actually pretty valuable, because they prevented people from having to suffer through things that are objectively bad. But again, that’s the old way of thinking. The concept of “bad” or “good” hardly exists any more. In its place, we have a goopy stew of garbage with a few nuggets of actual sustenance periodically bubbling up to the surface...

Technology used to be seen as an instrument for our creativity. A pencil made it easier to record our thoughts. A typewriter and a personal computer did the same, increasing our ability to say what we felt or wanted. Now, technology is actively interrupting our dreams. Artificial intelligence is not a tool for creativity, it’s a wet nurse who burps little babies and feeds them mashed peas every few hours. If I don’t have to spend time learning how to write or make music, then what do I even do with my creative life? I suppose I could spend more time engaging with content. I could devote my remaining days on this Earth to listening to all 100m songs on Spotify. Doesn’t that sound completely dreadful?"

Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works; IP Watchdog, November 3, 2025

ROSE ESFANDIARI , IP Watchdog; Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works

"On Friday, October 31, Professors Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, Lawrence Lessig and a number of other professors and researchers filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, urging the Court to grant certiorari and recognize copyright protection for works generated by artificial intelligence (AI).

The brief argued that “excluding AI-generated works from copyright protection threatens the foundations of American creativity, innovation, and economic growth,” warning that the lower court’s interpretation, which requires human authorship, disregards the “spirit of the Copyright Act.”"

AI can help authors beat writer’s block, says Bloomsbury chief; The Guardian, October 27, 2025

 Lauren Almeida, The Guardian; AI can help authors beat writer’s block, says Bloomsbury chief

[Kip Currier: These are interesting and unexpected comments by Nigel Newton, Bloomsbury publishing's founder and CEO. 

Bloomsbury is the publisher of my impending book Ethics, Information, and Technology. In the interest of transparency, I'll note that I researched and wrote my book the "oldfangled way" and didn't use AI for any aspects of my book, including brainstorming. Last year during a check-in meeting with my editor and a conversation about the book's AI chapter, I just happened to learn that Bloomsbury has had a policy on authors not using AI tools.

So it's noteworthy to see this publisher's shift on authors' use of AI tools.]

[Excerpt]

"Authors will come to rely on artificial intelligence to help them beat writer’s block, the boss of the book publisher Bloomsbury has said.

Nigel Newton, the founder and chief executive of the publisher behind the Harry Potter series, said the technology could support almost all creative arts, although it would not fully replace prominent writers.

“I think AI will probably help creativity, because it will enable the 8 billion people on the planet to get started on some creative area where they might have hesitated to take the first step,” he told the PA news agency...

Last week the publisher, which is headquartered in London and employs about 1,000 people, experienced a share rise of as much as 10% in a single day after it reported a 20% jump in revenue in its academic and professional division in the first half of its financial year, largely thanks to an AI licensing agreement.

However, revenues in its consumer division fell by about 20%, largely due to the absence of a new title from Maas."

UNM celebrates Open Access Week with film on copyright and creativity; UNM Newsroom, University of New Mexico, October 7, 2025

UNM Newsroom, University of New Mexico; UNM celebrates Open Access Week with film on copyright and creativity

"As part of International Open Access Week, the greater Lobo community is invited to Opening the Canon: Copyright, Access and Creativity, an evening of film, conversation and discovery Oct. 22 and 23, at 7 p.m. both nights at the Guild Cinema in Albuquerque. This event is free and open to the public.

This event will explore how works move from private ownership into the public domain, and what that means for creators, educators and the public. On Wednesday, Oct. 22, Bryan Konefsky of Basement Films will guide a discussion on copyright, open access, creativity and the art of working within a canon. He will also introduce the three films. The event will conclude with an open Q&A session with Konefsky.

The three films are:

• Steamboat Willie: Mickey Mouse’s first sound cartoon, newly in the public domain.
• Steamboat Bill, Jr. starting Buster Keaton, the film that inspired Disney’s steamboat adventure.
• Citizen Mickey by Salise Hughes: A Basement Films gem reimagining the mouse we all know.

On Thursday, Oct. 23, the event will include only a showing of the three films, no discussion. 

Opening the Canon is created through the support of the New Mexico Open Educational Resources Consortium, University Libraries, New Mexico Library Association and Basement Films, which has been around for 35 years supporting underrepresented forms of media.

International Open Access Week is an opportunity for the academic and research community to learn about the benefits of Open Access, to share what they’ve learned, and to inspire wider participation in making open access publishing a new norm in scholarship and research. 

Open access literature is online, free of charge and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. Open Access Week is held every October  and offers a chance to connect with the global momentum of openly sharing knowledge. This year, University Libraries, Health Sciences Library and Informatic Center, and the Law Library have teamed up to create events that shed light on Open Access all month long. Learn more about the events at the Open Access website."

Here's who owns what when it comes to AI, creativity and intellectual property; World Economic Forum, October 10, 2025

 Seemantani Sharma, Co-Founder, Mabill Technologies | Intellectual Property & Innovation Expert, Mabill Technologies, World Economic Forum ; Here's who owns what when it comes to AI, creativity and intellectual property

"Rethinking ownership

The intersection of AI, consciousness and intellectual property requires us to rethink how ownership should evolve. Keeping intellectual property strictly human-centred safeguards accountability, moral agency and the recognition of human creativity. At the same time, acknowledging AI’s expanding role in production may call for new approaches in law. These could take the form of shared ownership models, new categories of liability or entirely new rights frameworks.

For now, the legal balance remains with humans. As long as AI lacks consciousness, it cannot be considered a rights-holder under existing intellectual property theories. Nonetheless, as machine intelligence advances, society faces a pivotal choice. Do we reinforce a human-centred system to protect dignity and creativity or do we adapt the law to reflect emerging realities of collaboration between humans and machines?

This is more than a legal debate. It is a test of how much we value human creativity in an age of intelligent machines. The decisions we take today will shape the future of intellectual property and the meaning of authorship, innovation and human identity itself."

The 18th-century legal case that changed the face of music copyright law; WIPO Magazine, September 18, 2025

 Eyal Brook, Partner, Head of Artificial Intelligence, S. Horowitz & Co , WIPO Magazine;The 18th-century legal case that changed the face of music copyright law

"As we stand at the threshold of the AI revolution in music creation, perhaps the most valuable lesson from this history is not any particular legal doctrine but rather the recognition that our conceptions of musical works and authorship are not fixed but evolving.

Imagine what would have happened had Berne negotiators decided to define the term in 1886. The “musical work” as a legal concept was born from Johann Christian Bach’s determination to assert his creative rights – and it continues to transform with each new technological development and artistic innovation.

The challenge for copyright law in the 21st century is to keep fulfilling copyright’s fundamental purpose: to recognize and reward human creativity in all its forms. This will require not just legal ingenuity but also a willingness to reconsider our most basic assumptions about what music is and how it comes into being.

Bach’s legacy, then, is not just the precedent that he established but the ongoing conversation he initiated – an unfinished symphony of legal thought that continues to evolve with each new technological revolution and artistic movement.

As we face the challenges of AI and whatever technologies may follow, we would do well to remember that the questions we ask today about ownership and creativity echo those first raised in a London courtroom almost 250 years ago by a composer determined to claim what he believed was rightfully his."

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."

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."