Scott Turow's latest real-life legal thriller: Suing Meta for copyright infringement; NPR, May 5, 2026

 Chloe Veltman, NPR ; Scott Turow's latest real-life legal thriller: Suing Meta for copyright infringement

""All Americans should understand that the bold future promised by A.I., has been, to paraphrase the investigative writer Alex Reisner, created with stolen words," said Turow in a statement to NPR. "It is all the more shameful that these violations of the law were undertaken by one of the richest corporations in the world."

According to the complaint, Meta "briefly considered licensing deals with major publishers" but changed its strategy in April 2023. The question of whether to license or pirate moving forward was "escalated" to Zuckerberg, after which, the complaint alleges, Meta's business development team received verbal instructions to stop licensing efforts. "If we license once [sic] single book, we won't be able to lean into the fair use strategy," a Meta employee is quoted as saying in the complaint.

"It's the most flagrant copyright breach in history," said Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger in a statement to NPR. "And these voracious tech companies need to be held accountable.""

Publishers sue Meta, claiming it violated copyrights in training AI with their books; The Washington Post, May 5, 2026

 Maegan Vazquez, The Washington Post; Publishers sue Meta, claiming it violated copyrights in training AI with their books

"The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is the latest in a string of lawsuits brought by publishers, authors, artists, photographers and news outlets aimed at forcing tech companies to compensate them for using their works to train their AI models. The plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that the AI model’s ability to quickly produce knockoffs and summaries of copyrighted books threatens the livelihoods of publishers and authors.

A Meta spokesperson said in a statement that the company would “fight this lawsuit aggressively.”

“AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use,” the spokesperson said.

The publishers’ complaint states Meta distributed millions of copyrighted works without authorization and without compensating authors or publishers, claiming that Zuckerberg “personally authorized and actively encouraged the infringement.” They also claim that Meta removed copyright notices and copyright management information from the works used to train the AI model, known as Llama."

Even More Authors, Publishers Sue Meta Over Copyright in AI Training: What's Different Now; CNET, May 5, 2026

 Katelyn Chedraoui , CNET; Even More Authors, Publishers Sue Meta Over Copyright in AI Training: What's Different Now

Meta won a previous AI lawsuit brought by authors. Publishers are taking a different route this time.

"New lawsuit, same questions

Copyright is one of the most contentious legal issues around AI. Tech companies like Meta need high-quality, human-created data to build and refine their AI models. Nearly all of this material is protected by copyright. That means tech companies have to enter into licensing agreements or defend their use of the content as fair use under a provision of copyright law.

Meta and Anthropic have both won previous cases in lawsuits brought by authors, successfully defending their fair use. Anthropic agreed to settle some piracy claims with authors for $1.5 billion, or about $3,000 per pirated work. Both judges warned in their decisions that this won't be the result in every lawsuit...

One of the biggest considerations in these cases is whether tech companies' use of copyrighted books will make it harder for human authors to sell their work or otherwise affect the marketplace."

Rock Hall ‘fair use’ ruling raises big questions for creators; Cleveland.com, November 21, 2024

 Peter Chakerian, Cleveland.com; Rock Hall ‘fair use’ ruling raises big questions for creators

"Seeing things from both sides

“It can be a slippery-sloped and indeed it was a slippery slope,” said attorney Mark Avsec, partner and vice chair of the Intellectual Property Group of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff.

Avsec was part of the funk-rock band Wild Cherry (“Play That Funky Music”) and was an original member of Donnie Iris & the Cruisers. The keyboardist-songwriter wrote or co-wrote all the latter band’s music, was its sole lyricist and produced all of its albums.

“[C]ases started evolving to where any derivative work based on a copyrighted work was almost by definition transformative and therefore a fair use,” he said. 

“That can’t be right. A copyright owner’s ability to authorize or not authorize derivative works based on the copyrighted work is an important right under the Copyright Act.”

Avsec said that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the recent Warhol case reset things."

Even Free Libraries Come With a Cost; The National Law Review, September 13, 2024

  Anisa Noorassa of McDermott Will & Emery , The National Law Review; Even Free Libraries Come With a Cost

"The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment of copyright infringement against an internet book archive, holding that its free-to-access library did not constitute fair use of the copyrighted books. Hachette Book Group Inc. v. Internet Archive, Case No. 23-1260 (2d Cir. Sept. 4, 2024) (Menashi, Robinson, Kahn, JJ.).

Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House (collectively, the publishers) brought suit against Internet Archive alleging that its “Free Digital Library,” which loans copies of the publishers’ books without charge, violated the publishers’ copyrights. Internet Archive argued that its use of the publishers’ copyrighted material fell under the fair use exception to the Copyright Act because Internet Archive acquired physical books and digitized them for borrowing (much like a traditional library) and maintained a 1:1 ratio of borrowed material to physical copies except for a brief period during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The district court reviewed the four statutory fair use factors set forth in § 107 of the Copyright Act:

• The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
• The nature of the copyrighted work.
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
• The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The district court found that Internet Archive’s use of the works was not covered by the fair use exception because its use was non-transformative, was commercial in nature due to its solicitation of donations, and was disruptive of the market for e-book licenses. Internet Archive appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed, addressing each factor in turn."

Big new copyright fair use decision involving part owner of Miami Heat; Washington Post, 9/17/15

Eugene Volokh, Washington Post; Big new copyright fair use decision involving part owner of Miami Heat:

"I blogged about this case back when the magistrate judge issued his report, but today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed (Katz v. Chevaldina), and concluded that defendant Irina Chevaldina’s use of the photo shown above is a fair use. The twist: The subject of the photo, Raanan Katz, bought the photo after it was published and used by Chevaldina, and then sued her in his capacity as now-owner of the photograph. No dice, said the court, concluding — in my view correctly — that Chevaldina’s use was a “fair use” and thus not an infringement..."