Saturday, October 11, 2025

Two sides of book bans: PEN America and Moms for Liberty debate; USA TODAY, October 9, 2025

 Anna Kaufman , USA TODAY; Two sides of book bans: PEN America and Moms for Liberty debate

"To hear PEN America and Moms For Liberty speak about the dangers of a society curtailing free speech, you may need to squint to see the differences.

Both organizations profess an unwavering commitment to liberty, but stand firmly on either side of a growing debate about book banning in America.

PEN America, a nonprofit aimed at bolstering the freedom to write and read, has emerged as an outspoken critic of removing reading materials from schools and libraries that have been deemed inappropriate, most often by advocacy groups, but also by individual parents. PEN has been tracking book bans since 2021 and filed lawsuits alongside families and publishers that challenge book restrictions in schools.

Moms For Liberty, a conservative collective, is among the leaders in the parental rights movement. Local chapters of the organization tackle issues across the educational landscape, guiding parents who want to raise concerns at their schools, and flexing their political might through endorsements, stamping President Donald Trump with their approval in 2024.

"Our mission at Moms for Liberty is to unify, educate and empower parents to defend their parental rights," Tina Descovich, one of the organization's founders, tells USA TODAY. "Parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, whether it be education or medical care …So they also have the right to monitor what their children are watching and reading."

They don't ban books, she says, that would require the government to bar a person from writing or selling the book. "I think many Americans have chosen to use that word to advance a political agenda instead of using the word correctly," she says.

PEN begs to differ. Kasey Meehan, director of the organization's Freedom to Read program, says, "Our guiding light has always been access." If a group of a few has the power to remove a book from a public space open to all, then that amounts to a ban, she argues.

Banned Books Week "is not about acknowledging bygone censorship, it's really about bringing awareness of censorship that’s happening today," she says. "We have seen pretty well coordinated campaigns that are put on school districts or that are driven by state legislatures or state governors to see certain types of books removed."

To put both sides of the debate in clear view, USA TODAY sent the same questions to both organizations. Here are their responses, unedited and in full."

Friday, October 10, 2025

You Can’t Use Copyrighted Characters in OpenAI’s Sora Anymore and People Are Freaking Out; Gizmodo, October 8, 2025

, Gizmodo; You Can’t Use Copyrighted Characters in OpenAI’s Sora Anymore and People Are Freaking Out

 "OpenAI may be able to appease copyright holders by shifting its Sora policies, but it’s now pissed off its users. As 404 Media pointed out, social channels like Twitter and Reddit are now flooded with Sora users who are angry they can’t make 10-second clips featuring their favorite characters anymore. One user in the OpenAI subreddit said that being able to play with copyrighted material was “the only reason this app was so fun.” Another claimed, “Moral policing and leftist ideology are destroying America’s AI industry.” So, you know, it seems like they’re handling this well."

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

 Seemantani SharmaCo-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."

It’s Sam Altman: the man who stole the rights from copyright. If he’s the future, can we go backwards?; The Guardian, October 10, 2025

  , The Guardian; It’s Sam Altman: the man who stole the rights from copyright. If he’s the future, can we go backwards?

"I’ve seen it said that OpenAI’s motto should be “better to beg forgiveness than ask permission”, but that cosies it preposterously. Its actual motto seems to be “we’ll do what we want and you’ll let us, bitch”. Consider Altman’s recent political journey. “To anyone familiar with the history of Germany in the 1930s,” Sam warned in 2016, “it’s chilling to watch Trump in action.” He seems to have got over this in time to attend Donald Trump’s second inauguration, presumably because – if we have to extend his artless and predictable analogy – he’s now one of the industrialists welcome in the chancellery to carve up the spoils. “Thank you for being such a pro-business, pro-innovation president,” Sam simpered to Trump at a recent White House dinner for tech titans. “It’s a very refreshing change.” Inevitably, the Trump administration has refused to bring forward any AI regulation at all.

Meanwhile, please remember something Sam and his ironicidal maniacs said earlier this year, when it was suggested that the Chinese AI chatbot DeepSeek might have been trained on some of OpenAI’s work. “We are aware of and reviewing indications that DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our models, and will share information as we know more,” his firm’s anguished statement ran. “We take aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology.” Hilariously, it seemed that the last entity on earth with the power to fight AI theft was OpenAI."

Post to X from Bloomsbury Editor re 10/9/25 library-themed Letter to the Editor

 Kip Currier: Post to X from my Bloomsbury editor regarding my 10/9/25 library-themed Letter to the Editor:

Thank you, @BloomsburyLU author Kip Currier, for your reasoned and passionate defense of libraries in 2 PA newspapers. Libraries are the bedrock of healthy, equitable communities, and we couldn't be more proud to support libraries and library workers. https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/8750699042164055722/5219361931786295174

Hawaii library system bans displays that refer to ‘Banned Books Week,’ rebrands to ‘Freedom to Read’; AP, October 8, 2025

 BRITTANY LYTE AND CHAD BLAIR/HONOLULU CIVIL BEAT, AP; Hawaii library system bans displays that refer to ‘Banned Books Week,’ rebrands to ‘Freedom to Read’

"This week, libraries across the U.S. are observing Banned Books Week. In Hawaii, the national event has been rebranded as a week dedicated to the “freedom to read,” an attempt to cool what has become a hot-button political issue.

New guidelines issued by the Hawaii State Public Library System ahead of the 41st annual event prohibit the use of the words “censorship” and “banned,” as well as the phrase “banned books week,” in displays at 51 public libraries across the state.

Also banned are certain props and imagery, such as caution tape and fake flames, and the use of any slogans or materials from the ALA, the professional organization that has sponsored the yearly Banned Books Week campaign since its 1984 origins.

State Librarian Stacey Aldrich said in a statement Tuesday that the language used in the Freedom to Read campaign aims to be inclusive of all library patrons.

“There are people who misunderstand ‘banned books’ or believe that we are banning books,” she said...

“It’s important to get the facts out and I’m not allowed to put the facts in my display,” Kawahara said. “And this is all happening in the one week dedicated to awareness of censorship.”

Stickers emblazoned with “censorship is so 1984,” the ALA’s 2025 Banned Books Week theme, were also confiscated from the Lihue library...

On Monday, at a press conference in downtown Honolulu, the Hawaii Library Association and ACLU Hawaii launched the Freedom to Read initiative in support of intellectual freedom.

The occasion marked Banned Books Week 2025, which runs through Saturday, is intended to raise awareness of increasing challenges to books in classrooms and libraries. Banned Books Week was launched by the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom “in coalition with publishers, booksellers and writers’ organizations,” according to the ACLU."

Published Letter to the Editor: "Libraries support all of us; we should support them". October 9, 2025

 I am sharing a copy of my library-themed 10/9/25 Letter to the Editor that was published in the print versions and the digital versions of the Oil City (PA) paper The Derrick and the Franklin (PA) Times-Union newspapers in Venango County, Pennsylvania. The two newspapers share the same Monday-Saturday content under their own banners for each city. I wrote my letter in response to a 9/26/25 Letter to the Editor written by a Cranberry (Township) resident (not to be confused with the Cranberry in Butler County); I've copied the writer's letter below, after mine. Note: The typo at the start of the newspapers' copy of my letter was the fault of the paper and was not in the letter I emailed to them.

 
I was pleased that the newspapers did not make any changes to the prose. However, they did alter my web links: rather than including the precise websites within, say, Pew Research or ALA, they only provided the homepage; this may be part of their editorial policy. I provided links to evidence/authoritative data to support my points and research and rebut the assertions of the letter writer.
They also omitted my PhD and JD degrees I'd included after my name in the version I sent to them.
Letters to the Editor at these newspapers are limited to no more than 350 words. My submission was 346 words.
The newspapers unfortunately have a digital paywall that precludes free access to even one newspaper item, but this is the digital link to my letter: https://www.thederrick.com/opinion/letter-libraries-support-all-of-us-we-should-support-them/article_8fe1adc8-1dd5-48bf-9ac7-711dfe14d7fe.html 


LETTER: Libraries support all of us; we should support them

October 9, 2025
 

Editor,

This is in response to the Sept. 26 letter to the editor titled “Tax proposal needs to ‘die’ with the library” by Betty M. Hepler.

The author could not be more wrong or misinformed about the state of American libraries and the value they contribute to our lives and communities: libraries are vital necessities and community anchors in towns and cities throughout this nation. See www.pewresearch.org.

1. Libraries provide information and resources that help to educate citizens at all levels of our communities — from blue collar to white collar workplaces and everything in between. See www.ala.org.

2. Research studies demonstrate that libraries economically benefit businesses that are located nearby. See www.imls.gov.

3. Research data also show that libraries are a good “return on investment” (ROI): for every dollar of support to a library, library users are able to save hundreds of dollars by checking out thousands of books, movies, video games, and more, at no charge. See https://slol.libguides.com.

4. Today’s libraries offer all kinds of life-enhancing activities and services — story time for kids, book discussion groups for teens and seniors, access to free WiFi and computers, and classes and webinars on topics like “where to find jobs,” “starting your own business” and “how to use AI chatbots.” See https://action.everylibrary.org.

5. Libraries have been a foundational part of human life and history for thousands of years. They are essential tools and places that can benefit our lives; enable us to think, learn, and grow from our yesterdays; and fuel our hopes and dreams for better todays and tomorrows.

Libraries continue to change and evolve to better suit and meet our needs, just as humans and societies must change, adapt and evolve in order to survive and thrive.

Each of us knows that we need to take good care of ourselves to live the best lives we can. Let’s take good care of the libraries that support and serve us too. See https://www.ala.org.

Long live the library!

— Kip Currier,

Emlenton

 

 

LETTER: Tax proposal needs to 'die' with the library

  • Sep 26, 2025
 

Editor,

I am amazed that we are trying to keep alive a mostly dead memory — the library. We have been propping them up for decades.

The Encyclopedia salesman has lost his job; books are not being sold at the same rate as before, being available on tape or kindle now; libraries and bookstores have fallen to the side of the road.

Wake up! Most things have a time to shine but lose out to progress. Now we are trying to keep alive something that needs to admit its death.

The overburdened taxpayers of this country are having the blame and responsibility thrown on their shoulders.

On the front side, one may think it is a charge of $12.50. But my understanding is the cost is $12.50 per every $50,000 in assessment. All properties, for the most part, have seen a dramatic rise in their assessment; so this is a lot of money for something that is dead.

Let it die!

Turn it into a museum. No more taxes.

— Betty M. Hepler,

Cranberry

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

What AI-generated Tilly Norwood reveals about digital culture, ethics and the responsibilities of creators; The Conversation, October 8, 2025

 Director, Creative Innovation Studio; Associate Professor, RTA School of Media, Toronto Metropolitan University , The Conversation; What AI-generated Tilly Norwood reveals about digital culture, ethics and the responsibilities of creators


"Imagine an actor who never ages, never walks off set or demands a higher salary.

That’s the promise behind Tilly Norwood, a fully AI-generated “actress” currently being courted by Hollywood’s top talent agenciesHer synthetic presence has ignited a media firestorm, denounced as an existential threat to human performers by some and hailed as a breakthrough in digital creativity by others.

But beneath the headlines lies a deeper tension. The binaries used to debate Norwood — human versus machine, threat versus opportunity, good versus bad — flatten complex questions of art, justice and creative power into soundbites. 

The question isn’t whether the future will be synthetic; it already is. Our challenge now is to ensure that it is also meaningfully human."

OpenAI wasn’t expecting Sora’s copyright drama; The Verge, October 8, 2025

Hayden Field , The Verge; OpenAI wasn’t expecting Sora’s copyright drama

"When OpenAI released its new AI-generated video app Sora last week, it launched with an opt-out policy for copyright holders — media companies would need to expressly indicate they didn’t want their AI-generated characters running rampant on the app. But after days of Nazi SpongeBob, criminal Pikachu, and Sora-philosophizing Rick and Morty, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman announced the company would reverse course and “let rightsholders decide how to proceed.”

In response to a question about why OpenAI changed its policy, Altman said that it came from speaking with stakeholders and suggested he hadn’t expected the outcry.

“I think the theory of what it was going to feel like to people, and then actually seeing the thing, people had different responses,” Altman said. “It felt more different to images than people expected.”

Sunday, October 5, 2025

OpenAI hastily retreats from gung-ho copyright policy after embarrassing Sora video output like AI Sam Altman surrounded by Pokémon saying 'I hope Nintendo doesn't sue us'; PC Gamer, October 5, 2025

, PC Gamer ; OpenAI hastily retreats from gung-ho copyright policy after embarrassing Sora video output like AI Sam Altman surrounded by Pokémon saying 'I hope Nintendo doesn't sue us'

"This video is just one of many examples, but you'll have a much harder time finding Sora-generated videos containing Marvel or Disney characters. As reported by Automaton, Sora appears to be refusing prompts containing references to American IP, but Japanese IP didn't seem to be getting the same treatment over the past week.

Japanese lawyer and House of Representatives member Akihisa Shiozaki called for action to protect creatives in a post on X (formerly Twitter), which has been translated by Automaton: "I’ve tried out [Sora 2] myself, but I felt that it poses a serious legal and political problem. We need to take immediate action if we want to protect leading Japanese creators and the domestic content industry, and help them further develop. (I wonder why Disney and Marvel characters can’t be displayed).""

America goes gambling; Quartz, October 5, 2025

 Jackie Snow, Quartz; America goes gambling


[Kip Currier: This Quartz article America Goes Gambling is a timely one about a significant AI-driven development: massive growth in online gambling, sports betting, and gambling addictions after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a de facto ban on these activities (outside of Nevada and tribal casinos) in 2018's Murphy v. NCAA decision.

I spoke on the issue of AI-enhanced online gambling and sports betting at the September 2025 Faithful Futures: Guiding AI with Wisdom and Witness conference in Minneapolis and am currently finishing a chapter for publication on this emerging topic.]


[Excerpt]

"On any given Sunday this football season, Americans are placing millions in legal sports bets, a level of widespread wagering that would have been almost impossible a decade ago when only Nevada offered legal sportsbooks.

Today's football slate represents the peak of a sports betting boom that has fundamentally altered how Americans watch games. Sunday's action is part of an industry that's grown from $4.9 billion in total annual wagers in 2017 to almost $150 billion in 2024. But beneath the Sunday spectacle lies a growing concern about addiction specialists reporting record demand for gambling help as the line between sports entertainment and financial risk becomes increasingly blurred.

The transformation has been swift and dramatic. When the Supreme Court struck down the federal sports betting ban in Murphy v. NCAA in 2018, legal sports betting was confined to Nevada and tribal casinos. Today, legal sports betting operates in 39 states and Washington, D.C., with more statehouses considering laws that would greenlight it."

Fraud, AI slop and huge profits: is science publishing broken? – podcast; The Guardian, October 2, 2025

 Presented and produced by with Sound design by , the executive producer was ; Fraud, AI slop and huge profits: is science publishing broken? – podcast

"Scientists are warning that academic publishing needs urgent reform in order to retain trust in the research system. Ian Sample tells Madeleine Finlay what has gone so wrong, and Dr Mark Hanson of the University of Exeter proposes some potential solutions

Quality of scientific papers questioned as academics ‘overwhelmed’ by the millions published

Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

This podcast was amended on 2 October 2025 to include information about how AI is being used to spot low quality papers."

The Normalization of Book Banning; PEN America, October 1, 2025

  Sabrina BaêtaTasslyn Magnusson, Madison Markham, Kasey Meehan, Yuliana Tamayo Latorre, PEN America; The Normalization of Book Banning"

"Introduction


In 2025, book censorship in the United States is rampant and common. Never before in the life of any living American have so many books been systematically removed from school libraries across the country. Never before have so many states passed laws or regulations to facilitate the banning of books, including bans on specific titles statewide. Never before have so many politicians sought to bully school leaders into censoring according to their ideological preferences, even threatening public funding to exact compliance. Never before has access to so many stories been stolen from so many children.


The book bans that have accumulated in the past four years are unprecedented and undeniable. This report looks back at the 2024-2025 school year – the fourth school year in the contemporary campaign to ban books – and illustrates the continued attacks on books, stories, identities, and histories.  


This report offers a window into the complex and extensive climate of censorship between July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025. Our reporting on book bans remains a bellwether of a larger campaign to restrict and control education and public narratives, wreaking havoc on our public schools and democracy."

Saturday, October 4, 2025

‘Orwell: 2+2=5’ Review: How George Came to See the World as Orwellian; The New York Times, October 2, 2025

  , The New York Times; ‘Orwell: 2+2=5’ Review: How George Came to See the World as Orwellian

"“The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude,” George Orwell wrote in 1946, a year after the end of the World War II. That line appears early in “Orwell: 2 + 2 = 5,” an essayistic documentary from Raoul Peck that surveys its title subject’s life and work, using them as a lens to explore authoritarian power in the past and the present. Densely packed, the movie is a whirlwind of ideas and images, by turns heady, enlivening, disturbing and near-exhausting. It’s a work of visceral urgency from Peck, who’s best known for his 2017 documentary “I Am Not Your Negro,” about James Baldwin.

Peck plucked that observation about art and politics from Orwell’s essential 1946 essay “Why I Write,” in which he lists “four great motives for writing” — especially for writing prose and, of course, aside from earning a living — including “political purpose.” Near the end of the essay, Orwell writes that he hopes to start a new book. What soon followed was “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” the seismic novel that helped turn his name into an adjective. Anchored by Orwell’s writing — and Damian Lewis’s calm, intimate voice-over — Peck charts the writer’s life in tandem with world-shattering events, focusing on when he was working on “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” which was published in 1949. Months later, Orwell was dead."

Sam Altman says Sora will add ‘granular,’ opt-in copyright controls; TechCrunch, October 4, 2025

Anthony Ha , TechCrunch; Sam Altman says Sora will add ‘granular,’ opt-in copyright controls

"OpenAI may be reversing course on how it approaches copyright and intellectual property in its new video app Sora.

Prior to Sora’s launch this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that OpenAI had been telling Hollywood studios and agencies that they needed to explicitly opt out if they didn’t want their IP to be included in Sora-generated videos.

Despite being invite-only, the app quickly climbed to the top of the App Store charts. Sora’s most distinctive feature may be its “cameos,” where users can upload their biometric data to see their digital likeness featured in AI-generated videos.

At the same time, users also seem to delight in flouting copyright laws by creating videos with popular, studio-owned characters. In some cases, those characters might even criticize the company’s approach to copyright, for example in videos where Pikachu and SpongeBob interact with deepfakes of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

In a blog post published Friday, Altman said the company is already planning two changes to Sora, first by giving copyright holders “more granular control over generation of characters, similar to the opt-in model for likeness but with additional controls.”"

Thursday, October 2, 2025

Harvard Professors May Be Eligible for Payments in $1.5 Billion AI Copyright Settlement; The Harvard Crimson, October 1, 2025

Victoria D. Rengel, The Harvard Crimson;  Harvard Professors May Be Eligible for Payments in $1.5 Billion AI Copyright Settlement

"Following mediation, the plaintiffs and defendants filed a motion for the preliminary approval of a settlement on Sept. 5, which included an agreement from Anthropic that it will destroy its pirated databases and pay $1.5 billion in damages to a group of authors and publishers.

On Sept. 25, a California federal judge granted preliminary approval for a settlement, the largest in the history of copyright cases in the U.S.

Each member of the class will receive a payment of approximately $3,000 per pirated work.

Authors whose works are in the databases are not notified separately, but instead must submit their contact information to receive a formal notice of the class action — meaning a number of authors, including many Harvard professors, may be unaware that their works were pirated by Anthropic.

Lynch said Anthropic’s nonconsensual use of her work undermines the purpose behind why she, and other scholars, write and publish their work.

“All of us at Harvard publish, but we thought when we were publishing that we are doing that — to communicate to other human beings,” she said. “Not to be fed into this mill.”"

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

The Rainmaker: What 20 Years In Supreme Court Practice Have Taught Me; Above The Law, September 30, 2025

 Neal Katyal  , Above The Law; The Rainmaker: What 20 Years In Supreme Court Practice Have Taught Me

"The Improv Principle

Ed. note: The Rainmaker is a new Above the Law series highlighting attorneys who have built distinguished practices by excelling not only in the courtroom and at the negotiating table, but also in business development, mentorship, and leadership. Each installment will feature candid reflections on what it takes to succeed as a rainmaker in today’s legal industry. Our first featured rainmaker is Neal Katyal...

For years, I’ve been studying improv comedy, and it’s transformed how I think about legal practice. The cardinal rule of improv is “yes, and”—you accept what your scene partners offer and build on it. You don’t say “no” or shut down their contribution. You make your partners look good, and in turn they make you look good.

This sounds soft. It’s not. It’s the hardest discipline I know.

In a meeting, when an associate offers an idea that seems off-base, the instinct is to correct them, to show why you’re the experienced lead counsel. The improv instinct is different: find what’s valuable in their contribution and build on it. “Yes, and we could take that framework and apply it to the jurisdictional question.” Suddenly, the associate isn’t embarrassed—they’re energized. They’ve contributed something real. They’ll work twice as hard for you, and next time, their idea might be the one that wins the case. 

This isn’t artificial, it’s definitely not about giving false praise.  A smart associate, after all, will see through that in a second.  It’s rather about trying to find the diamond in the rough, the insight that the associate has and that can be built upon. I kind of stumbled upon that idea when I did my first case, challenging Guantanamo. At my side were a dozen law students – and they would all have various writing assignments and my duty was to sort through all their insights and build a coherent product out of it. Many were off-the-wall, to be sure, but many were brilliant, too. It just took work to find those flashes of brilliance and to build upon them. That kind of “bottom-up” strategy is one I have taken to heart – so much so that today I routinely take advice on crafting arguments from my Researcher at Milbank. My Researcher is someone who has graduated from college and yet has not attended law school.

This isn’t just about associates or your internal team, it’s just as much about clients. When a client pushes back on your strategy, you could dig in and explain why you’re right. Or you could listen—really listen—to what’s driving their concern. Usually, they’re telling you something important about their business reality, their risk tolerance, or their board dynamics. “Yes, and given that constraint, what if we structured the argument this way?” Now you’re not just their lawyer; you’re their partner.

Why Clients Return

Twenty-three years ago when I wrote that piece, I thought clients hired you for your legal brilliance. They don’t. They hire you because you make their problems smaller, not bigger.

I’ve represented the same clients through multiple Supreme Court cases, not because I won every time (I haven’t), but because they trust that I’ll listen to what they actually need. Sometimes what they need is an aggressive cert petition. Sometimes what they need is someone to tell them that the case isn’t worth the institutional risk of taking to the Court. The clients who keep coming back are the ones who know you’ll give them the second answer when it’s true, even though it costs you a major case and significant fees.

This requires a specific kind of humility: the humility to know that the client understands their business better than you do, and that your legal judgment is in service of their goals, not the other way around. Supreme Court lawyers can struggle with this because we’re trained to think about doctrinal purity and legal architecture. But clients don’t care about your elegant theory of administrative law. They care about whether they can build the project, launch the product, or avoid the devastating liability.

The best piece of advice I ever received came from Eric Holder, who mentored me at the Justice Department in my first stint there, right after my clerkships. He watched me fail to persuade senior officials of a position that I was absolutely certain was right. Afterward, he pulled me aside. “Your analysis was perfect,” he said. “But you didn’t listen to their concerns. You tried to convince them you were right instead of understanding why they were worried. Next time, start by understanding their perspective.”

That lesson echoes through every client relationship, every oral argument, every brief. Start by understanding their perspective."

Disney Sends Cease And Desist Letter To Character.ai For Copyright Infringement As Studios Move To Protect IP; Deadline, September 30, 2025

Jill Goldsmith, Deadline; Disney Sends Cease And Desist Letter To Character.ai For Copyright Infringement As Studios Move To Protect IP

"Walt Disney sent a cease-and-desist letter to Character.AI, a “personalized superintelligence platform” that the media giant says is ripping off copyrighted characters without authorization.

The AI startup offers users the ability to create customizable, personalized AI companions that can be totally original but in some cases are inspired by existing characters, including, it seems, Disney icons from Spider-Man and Darth Vader to Moana and Elsa.

The letter is the latest legal salvo by Hollywood as studios begin to step up against AI. Disney has also sued AI company Midjourney for allegedly improper use and distribution of AI-generated characters from Disney films. Disney, Warner Bros. and Universal Pictures this month sued Chinese AI firm MiniMax for copyright infringement."