Anthropic settles with authors in first-of-its-kind AI copyright infringement lawsuit; NPR, September 5, 2025

 Chloe Veltman , NPR; Anthropic settles with authors in first-of-its-kind AI copyright infringement lawsuit

"In one of the largest copyright settlements involving generative artificial intelligence, Anthropic AI, a leading company in the generative AI space, has agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by a group of authors.

If the court approves the settlement, Anthropic will compensate authors around $3,000 for each of the estimated 500,000 books covered by the settlement.

The settlement, which U.S. Senior District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco will consider approving next week, is in a case that involved the first substantive decision on how fair use applies to generative AI systems. It also suggests an inflection point in the ongoing legal fights between the creative industries and the AI companies accused of illegally using artistic works to train the large language models that underpin their widely-used AI systems.

The fair use doctrine enables copyrighted works to be used by third parties without the copyright holder's consent in some circumstances, such as when illustrating a point in a news article. AI companies trying to make the case for the use of copyrighted works to train their generative AI models commonly invoke fair use. But authors and other creative industry plaintiffs have been pushing back.

"This landmark settlement will be the largest publicly reported copyright recovery in history," the settlement motion states, arguing that it will "provide meaningful compensation" to authors and "set a precedent of AI companies paying for their use of pirated websites."

"This settlement marks the beginning of a necessary evolution toward a legitimate, market-based licensing scheme for training data," said Cecilia Ziniti, a tech industry lawyer and former Ninth Circuit clerk who is not involved in this specific case but has been following it closely. "It's not the end of AI, but the start of a more mature, sustainable ecosystem where creators are compensated, much like how the music industry adapted to digital distribution.""

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Excerpt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary: A win-win-win path for AI in America; The Post & Courier, July 22, 2025

Keith Kupferschmid, The Post & Courier; Commentary: A win-win-win path for AI in America

"Contrary to claims that these AI training deals are impossible to make at scale, a robust free market is already emerging in which hundreds (if not thousands) of licensed deals between AI companies and copyright owners have been reached. New research shows it is possible to create fully licensed data sets for AI.

No wonder one federal judge recently called claims that licensing is impractical “ridiculous,” given the billions at stake: “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.” Just like AI companies don’t dispute that they have to pay for energy, infrastructure, coding teams and the other inputs their operations require, they need to pay for creative works as well.

America’s example to the world is a free-market economy based on the rule of law, property rights and freedom to contract — so, let the market innovate solutions to these new (but not so new) licensing challenges. Let’s construct a pro-innovation, pro-worker approach that replaces the false choice of the AI alarmists with a positive, pro-America pathway to leadership on AI."

Libraries Pay More for E-Books. Some States Want to Change That.; The New York Times, July 16, 2025

Erik Ofgang, The New York Times; Libraries Pay More for E-Books. Some States Want to Change That.

Proposed legislation would pressure publishers to adjust borrowing limits and find other ways to widen access. 

"Librarians complain that publishers charge so much to license e-books that it’s busting library budgets and frustrating efforts to provide equitable access to reading materials. Big publishers and many authors say that e-book library access undermines their already struggling business models. Smaller presses are split."

Musicians brace for impact as Senate vote on public radio looms; The Washington Post, July 15, 2025

 Ethan Beck, The Washington Post; Musicians brace for impact as Senate vote on public radio looms

"For the more than 1,000 public radio stations that play independent music, Boilen says the bill is an existential threat...

“All stations would be in trouble of not being able to play music,” NPR president and CEO Katherine Maher said. The CPB spends nearly $20 million on licensing most years, covering an expense Maher said would be impossible for most stations to afford. “Regardless of how big you are, even the largest station in the NPR network and in public radio still operates on a budget of less than $100 million a year.”

Licensing isn’t the only thing threatened by the rescission bill, which also retracts funding from foreign aid programs such as global AIDS prevention and other public media such as PBS."

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."

Eminem, AI and me: why artists need new laws in the digital age; The Guardian, July 2, 2025

Alexander Hurst , The Guardian; Eminem, AI and me: why artists need new laws in the digital age

"Song lyrics, my publisher informs me, are subject to notoriously strict copyright enforcement and the cost to buy the rights is often astronomical. Fat chance as well, then, of me quoting Eminem to talk about how Lose Yourself seeped into the psyche of a generation when he rapped: “You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow, this opportunity comes once in a lifetime.”

Oh would it be different if I were an AI company with a large language model (LLM), though. I could scrape from the complete discography of the National and Eminem, and the lyrics of every other song ever written. Then, when a user prompted something like, “write a rap in the style of Eminem about losing money, and draw inspiration from the National’s Bloodbuzz Ohio”, my word correlation program – with hundreds of millions of paying customers and a market capitalisation worth tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars – could answer:

“I still owe money to the money to the money I owe,

But I spit gold out my throat when I flow,

So go tell the bank they can take what they like

I already gave my soul to the mic.”

And that, according to rulings last month by the US courts, is somehow “fair use” and is perplexingly not copyright infringement at all, despite no royalties having been paid to anyone in the process."

UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI; The Guardian, June 6, 2025

Eleni Courea and Dan Milmo, The Guardian ; UK government signals it will not force tech firms to disclose how they train AI

"Opponents of the plans have warned that even if the attempts to insert clauses into the data bill fail, the government could be challenged in the courts over the proposed changes.

The consultation on copyright changes, which is due to produce its findings before the end of the year, contains four options: to let AI companies use copyrighted work without permission, alongside an option for artists to “opt out” of the process; to leave the situation unchanged; to require AI companies to seek licences for using copyrighted work; and to allow AI firms to use copyrighted work with no opt-out for creative companies and individuals.

The technology secretary, Peter Kyle, has said the copyright-waiver-plus-opt-out scenario is no longer the government’s preferred option, but Kidron’s amendments have attempted to head off that option by effectively requiring tech companies to seek licensing deals for any content that they use to train their AI models."

How AI and copyright turned into a political nightmare for Labour; Politico.eu, June 4, 2025

JOSEPH BAMBRIDGE , Politico.eu; How AI and copyright turned into a political nightmare for Labour

"The Data (Use and Access Bill) has ricocheted between the Commons and the Lords in an extraordinarily long incidence of ping-pong, with both Houses digging their heels in and a frenzied lobbying battle on all sides."

Government AI copyright plan suffers fourth House of Lords defeat; BBC, June 2, 2025

Zoe Kleinman , BBC; Government AI copyright plan suffers fourth House of Lords defeat

"The argument is over how best to balance the demands of two huge industries: the tech and creative sectors. 

More specifically, it's about the fairest way to allow AI developers access to creative content in order to make better AI tools - without undermining the livelihoods of the people who make that content in the first place.

What's sparked it is the Data (Use and Access) Bill.

This proposed legislation was broadly expected to finish its long journey through parliament this week and sail off into the law books. 

Instead, it is currently stuck in limbo, ping-ponging between the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

A government consultation proposes AI developers should have access to all content unless its individual owners choose to opt out. 

But 242 members of the House of Lords disagree with the bill in its current form.

They think AI firms should be forced to disclose which copyrighted material they use to train their tools, with a view to licensing it."

Eminem Hits Meta With A Copyright Lawsuit After It Allegedly Misappropriated Hundreds Of His Songs; ABOVE THE LAW, June 4, 2025

 Chris Williams , ABOVE THE LAW; Eminem Hits Meta With A Copyright Lawsuit After It Allegedly Misappropriated Hundreds Of His Songs

"Don’t. Mess. With. Eminem. And if the events are as cut and dried as the complaint makes it seem, Meta is getting off easy with the $109M price tag. Meta of all companies should know that the only thing that can get away with brazenly stealing the work of wealthy hard-working artists without facing legal consequences is AI-scrapping software."

Author sides with students in revolt over book passage used in AP exam; The Washington Post, May 24, 2025

Kim Bellware, The Washington Post; Author sides with students in revolt over book passage used in AP exam

"Serpell, herself a longtime critic of standardized tests, said the College Board, the billion-dollar standardized-testing juggernaut that administers them, did not ask permission to use her work and distorted her writing.

“Stranger Faces,” a collection of essays on the pleasure people take in unusual faces in works of art, was geared toward professional scholars, not high school readers, Serpell said, and she insists that the complexity of her writing can only be understood in fuller context. The exam excerpt, she said, omitted critical writing that would have made her arguments and rhetorical effects clearer.

As Serpell deals with the fallout — which, in some cases, she said, included death threats — she is siding with the students, taking up their arguments with the College Board and touching off a heated online debate over academic ethics."

Fannin County school play canceled over copyright violation, principal says; WSBTV.com, May 20, 2025

 WSBTV.com News Staff , WSBTV.com; Fannin County school play canceled over copyright violation, principal says

"While the changes themselves were not detailed, and Channel 2 Action News has reached out for more information, school officials said the copyright violation from their license of the play made their decision for them.

“Upon investigation, we learned that the performance did not reflect the original script. These alterations were not approved by the licensing company or administration. The performance contract for The Crucible does not allow modifications without prior written approval. Failing to follow the proper licensing approval process for additions led to a breach in our contract with the play’s publisher,” school officials said. “The infraction resulted in an automatic termination of the licensing agreement. The second performance of The Crucible could not occur because we were no longer covered by a copyright agreement.”

The school also confirmed in their statement that the script is taught in English classes at the institution, though it is not a required text."

Ministers to amend data bill amid artists’ concerns over AI and copyright; The Guardian, April 30, 2025

 Eleni Courea and Dan Milmo , The Guardian; Ministers to amend data bill amid artists’ concerns over AI and copyright

"Ministers have drawn up concessions on copyright changes in an attempt to appease artists and creators before a crucial vote in parliament next week, the Guardian has learned.

The government will promise to carry out an economic impact assessment of its proposed copyright changes and to publish reports on issues including transparency, licensing and access to data for AI developers.

The concessions are designed to mollify concerns in parliament and in creative industries about the government’s proposed shake-up of copyright rules."

An AI Maker Was Just Found Liable for Copyright Infringement. What Does This Portend for Content Creators and AI Makers?; The Federalist Society, February 25, 2025

  John Blanton Farmer , The Federalist Society; An AI Maker Was Just Found Liable for Copyright Infringement. What Does This Portend for Content Creators and AI Makers?

"In a case decided on February 11, the makers of generative AI (GenAI), such as ChatGPT, lost the first legal battle in the war over whether they commit copyright infringement by using the material of others as training data without permission. The case is called Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.

If other courts follow this ruling, the cost of building and selling GenAI services will dramatically increase. Such businesses are already losing money.

The ruling could also empower content creators, such as writers, to deny the use of their material to train GenAIs or to demand license fees. Some creators might be unwilling to license use of their material for training AIs due to fear that GenAI will destroy demand for their work."

We Stood Up for Access to the Law and Congress Listened: 2024 in Review; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), December 25, 2024

KATHARINE TRENDACOSTA , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); We Stood Up for Access to the Law and Congress Listened: 2024 in Review

"Because you wrote in, because experts sent letters explaining the problems, enough members of Congress recognized that Pro Codes is not uncontroversial. It is not a small deal to allow industry giants to own parts of the law."

The AI Boom May Be Too Good to Be True; Wall Street Journal, December 26, 2024

Josh Harlan, Wall Street Journal; The AI Boom May Be Too Good to Be True

 "Investors rushing to capitalize on artificial intelligence have focused on the technology—the capabilities of new models, the potential of generative tools, and the scale of processing power to sustain it all. What too many ignore is the evolving legal structure surrounding the technology, which will ultimately shape the economics of AI. The core question is: Who controls the value that AI produces? The answer depends on whether AI companies must compensate rights holders for using their data to train AI models and whether AI creations can themselves enjoy copyright or patent protections.

The current landscape of AI law is rife with uncertainty...How these cases are decided will determine whether AI developers can harvest publicly available data or must license the content used to train their models."

Eddy Grant And Donald Trump Settle Copyright Lawsuit Over Use Of ‘Electric Avenue’ In Campaign Video; Deadline, November 21, 2024

Ted Johnson , Deadline; Eddy Grant And Donald Trump Settle Copyright Lawsuit Over Use Of ‘Electric Avenue’ In Campaign Video

"Eddy Grant and Donald Trump have reached a settlement in the singer’s copyright infringement lawsuit over the Trump campaign’s use of “Electric Avenue” in an online video promoting his 2020 reelection campaign. 

U.S. District Judge John Koetl filed notice that the parties had reached a settlement, but a sum was not disclosed. The judge also wrote that the case was discontinued with prejudice but without costs.

In September, the judge found Trump liable for copyright infringement, leaving unresolved the issue of whether a jury should be convened to decide an amount. Grant has asked for $300,000 and lawyers’ fees in the four-year-old case."