Publishers Hit the AI Jackpot; Vulture, October 1, 2026

 Emma Alpern, Vulture; Publishers Hit the AI Jackpot

"When Anthropic said it would pay $1.5 billion to resolve the class-action lawsuit Bartz v. Anthropic, it was agreeing to the largest U.S. copyright settlement of all time. Each copyrighted title will be allotted $3,000, mostly split 50-50 between authors and publishers, with the first payment coming as soon as November. For publishing houses with thousands of titles, the not-insubstantial infusion of tech money is “a shot in the arm,” as one publishing professional puts it. “I don’t think anyone’s satisfied,” says a big-five editor, “but it was more money than I expected. It’s a lot of money.”

It was a different story for writers, many of whom, earlier this September, logged on to Anthropic’s online portal to check on their claims and were shocked to discover their publishers had filed for 100 percent of the cash. Others realized with dismay that their publishers had failed to register their books for copyright at all, making them ineligible, and that some out-of-print books were shown as being subject to the publisher-author split even though their ownership had long ago reverted to the person who wrote them. The mood was grim. “I knew the Anthropic settlement would get messy, but I’m in disbelief over the shakedowns happening with publishers, former agents, and others trying to get a bigger percentage (or any at all),” children’s writer Elizabeth Eulberg wrote on Threads. I asked author April Henry if she’s found it hard to reach her publishers, one of whom mistakenly filed for 100 percent. “I didn’t try. Who would I get in touch with?” she says. “They never really communicated with us.”

 HASSAN ALI KANU, Politico; News publishers accuse Trump admin of bias toward AI companies in copyright suit

The Justice Department earlier this month filed a statement in court supporting OpenAI’s defense in the publishers' copyright lawsuit.

"Lawyers for The New York Times and other major publishers on Monday asked a federal court to disregard the Justice Department’s efforts to get involved in their lawsuit against OpenAI, saying the Trump administration may simply be biased in the company’s favor.

The publishers are suing OpenAI for copyright infringement. The Justice Department earlier this month filed a statement supporting OpenAI’s defense in the case, arguing that copying others’ content without permission in order to train large language models is protected under the “fair use” doctrine.

The newspapers on Monday responded that DOJ had discounted the Copyright Office’s contrary conclusion on fair use and AI, and noting that the government is seeking to weigh in at an especially early stage of the case.

“That the DOJ fails to acknowledge any possible contrary views, and dismisses the Copyright Office’s comprehensive study in a footnote, suggests that the DOJ may have been influenced by extraneous considerations — up to and including the Administration’s political and financial interests,” lawyers for the publishers wrote. “Although one could argue that political factors will always influence Government litigation positions to some extent, the nature, extent, and transparency of the AI industry’s efforts to influence this Administration should not be lightly dismissed.”...

The plaintiffs include The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and other newspapers, as well as a group of authors that includes Sylvia Day, John Grisham and George R. R. Martin."

The AI Copyright Cases Are Starting to Tell Us Something; Legalytics, September 14, 2026

 ADAM FELDMAN, Legalytics; The AI Copyright Cases Are Starting to Tell Us Something

"The emerging question is therefore no longer simply whether AI companies can train on copyrighted material. A potentially more useful set of questions is coming into view: What exactly did the defendant copy? How did it obtain the material? What copies did it retain? What can the resulting system reproduce or retrieve? Does the AI product compete with the copyright owner’s market? And what evidence exists that the challenged conduct has actually produced market harm?

The answers do not yet produce a reliable formula for predicting who will win though. Most of the litigation remains unresolved, and motions to dismiss, preliminary injunctions, summary judgments, and settlements answer different legal questions. But the accumulated cases now provide enough variation to identify where the pressure points are developing. And those key points suggest that the next phase of AI copyright litigation may look considerably less like one giant test of AI training than the first wave of cases made it appear.

Two Courts, but an Increasingly Diverse Set of Cases

The litigation is remarkably concentrated geographically. Of the 105 captured U.S. infringement actions, 49 were filed in the Northern District of California and 32 in the Southern District of New York. Together those districts account for 77% of the filings in the dataset.

Consolidation does not explain away the pattern. When related proceedings are collapsed into litigation families, roughly the same share—76%—remains centered in those two courts."

Why the DOJ’s OpenAI copyright stance is the real threat to national security; ZDNET, September 15, 2026

 David Gewirtz, ZDNET; Why the DOJ’s OpenAI copyright stance is the real threat to national security

The DOJ argues that AI training is transformative fair use, but publishers say unlicensed scraping threatens their survival. This copyright fight could shape the future of online knowledge.

"Ever since generative AI arrived in early 2023, we’ve seen that its almost unlimited base of knowledge is due to how the big AI companies trained their models. To a large degree, AI models like those from OpenAI and Anthropic have been trained on anything they could ingest, including nearly all the copyrighted material on the web.

The AI companies are even reported to be buying up physical books by the millions, cutting them apart, scanning them in, and then disposing of the remains. For example, based on a search of the Anthropic settlement database, I know the company scanned my book, The Flexible Enterprise, and included it in the Claude corpus. I was never asked for permission. I don’t even get a free Claude account.

Due to the bulk ingestion of intellectual property, many companies filed suit against the AI companies. One such company is Ziff Davis, the owner of ZDNET. Disclosure: Ziff is also the company that pays me each week for my writing here.

Two weeks ago, on Sept. 1, 2026, the US Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case is being litigated. What makes this statement particularly interesting is that the DOJ is not one of the parties in the case. The government is putting its thumb on the scale, weighing in on a lawsuit between private parties.

On Monday, Fortune published a commentary by Vivek Shah, CEO of Ziff Davis, regarding the Justice Department’s unusual intervention in the case. In this article, I’ll briefly summarize the DOJ’s statement, then discuss Shah’s premise, and then pick up and expand upon it with some of my own thoughts."

Court Filings in A.I. Suit Invoke Copyright Law, Culture and Sports; The New York Times, September 4, 2026

 Mike Isaac and Karen Weise , The New York Times; Court Filings in A.I. Suit Invoke Copyright Law, Culture and Sports

Filings made Friday in The New York Times’s closely watched lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft included a range of copyright law and cultural references.

"Court filings made Friday in a closely watched copyright trial pitting The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft invoked a wide range of material, including relevant copyright law, arts and sports.

The suit, filed in 2023 by The Times and joined by a group of other news outlets, claims that OpenAI, a leading artificial intelligence start-up, and its partner Microsoft infringed on the publishers’ copyrighted material by using millions of their articles to train A.I. technologies. A.I. companies now compete with The Times as a source of information, the news outlet argued in its suit.

The briefs, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, largely boiled down to two questions: whether the publishers’ news articles were sufficiently “transformed” into an entirely new work by A.I., and whether A.I. produced content that “substituted” for news articles and harmed their value.

Friday was the last day the companies could file motions for a summary judgment that would head off a trial. Judge Sidney H. Stein is expected to make a ruling in the coming weeks."

EFF to Courts: Don’t Rewrite Copyright Over AI Hype; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), August 31, 2026

 TORI NOBLE AND CORYNNE MCSHERRY, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); EFF to Courts: Don’t Rewrite Copyright Over AI Hype

"It is not the place of courts to say these people are not artists or that AI cannot augment human creativity in a positive way."

UK's Bloomsbury among beneficiaries of $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright lawsuit settlement; Reuters, July 22, 2026

 Reuters ; UK's Bloomsbury among beneficiaries of $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright lawsuit settlement

"Britain's Bloomsbury ​Publishing confirmed on Wednesday it was among ‌the beneficiaries of a landmark $1.5 billion settlement that resolves claims artificial intelligence ​company Anthropic used copyrighted books ​to train its AI models without ⁠purchasing the content.

Here are some ​more details:

• Bloomsbury said a U.S. court ​identified 14,087 of its titles covered by the settlement, with proposed compensation of ​about $3,000 per title, split equally ​between the author and publisher...
• The settlement ​is the largest known copyright payout ​in ⁠U.S. history."

The Secret Weapon Against AI Dominance; The Atlantic, April 30, 2026

 Jacob Noti-Victor and Xiyin Tang, The Atlantic; The Secret Weapon Against AI Dominance

"More than 90 lawsuits have been filed by creators against AI companies for copyright infringement. Authors, musicians, visual artists, and news publishers have all accused firms such as OpenAI, Meta, and Anthropic of using their copyrighted works to train AI models without permission. (The Atlantic is involved in one such lawsuit, against the AI firm Cohere.) These cases are frequently framed as the defining fight over the future of creative labor and the entertainment industry as a whole. As one of these lawsuits put it, artists are seeking to end “infringement of their rights before their professions are eliminated by a computer program powered entirely by their hard work.”

But the future of creative labor will more likely be decided through a different question within copyright law, one that has received far less attention: To what extent should AI-generated works receive copyright protection at all? In a 2024 case, Thaler v. Perlmutter, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that a work generated autonomously by an AI system cannot be protected by copyright, because copyright requires a human “author.” The Supreme Court declined to review that decision in March. With the lower-court decision left in place, the question now becomes how much AI content can be incorporated into a work before it becomes mostly or totally uncopyrightable; courts have not yet weighed in on this but may soon.

The Thaler decision (and any future decisions that refine it) will have major economic consequences for the creative industries and the workers they employ."

AI Startups Have These Copyright Lawyers on Speed Dial; Bloomberg Law, April 16, 2026

 David Schultz , Bloomberg Law; AI Startups Have These Copyright Lawyers on Speed Dial

"Something similar connects many of the top attorneys representing the artificial intelligence industry in its most consequential battles: their resumes.

The common thread is Durie Tangri. More than 50 attorneys from the defunct Bay Area intellectual property firm are at the center of epic Silicon Valley copyright fights, just more than three years after Morrison Foerster acquired the practice...

“Tech copyright is a small world,” said Joseph Gratz, one of the alums at Morrison.

The Durie Tangri alums have benefited from the demand in tech copyright law, said Gratz, who has appeared in court defending OpenAI in almost two dozen federal lawsuits...

One of the marquee cases Durie Tangri took on was the decade-long copyright infringement suit over Google’s book digitization. Sonal Mehta, a Durie Tangri alum who is now at WilmerHale, said the boutique relished taking on matters that ventured into uncharted territory.

“We weren’t afraid to be operating in gray areas or to be looking at where the law hadn’t fully developed,” Mehta said. “We didn’t need to feel like every argument had to be something that was a cookie cutter argument that had already been made and won 20 times before.”"

Judge slams key OpenAI witness in copyright infringement case for ‘hazy recollections’; New York Daily News via Chicago Tribune, April 9, 2026

 MOLLY CRANE-NEWMAN , New York Daily News via Chicago Tribune; Judge slams key OpenAI witness in copyright infringement case for ‘hazy recollections’

"An unimpressed Manhattan judge ordered a corporate representative for OpenAI to undergo a second deposition after finding he failed to answer “even the simplest questions” the first time around about what the company has described as efforts to limit chatbots from stealing writers’ work.

​Magistrate Judge Ona Wang, in a sharply-worded 11-page order Tuesday, said OpenAI had been put on notice that the company’s purported expert on plagiarism John Vincent “Vinnie” Monaco was woefully underprepared for his January deposition, ordering him to submit to 3.5 more hours of questioning that took place Wednesday.

​In granting a motion from the Chicago Tribune, New York Times and other news outlets suing OpenAI to compel the additional testimony, Wang deferred ruling on a request for sanctions, saying it would depend on how Monaco fared in his do-over. She said she may issue fines or recommend some of his answers be deemed as admissions.

​OpenAI has previously said that Monaco has more knowledge than any of its engineers about Project Giraffe, an internal operation which the company claims is designed to develop ways to limit its learning language models, or LLMs, from inadvertently regurgitating copyrighted works — the issue at the core of the ongoing Manhattan Federal Court lawsuit."

ChatGPT creator must turn over 20M chat logs in copyright litigation, federal judge says; ABA Journal, January 8, 2026

 AMANDA ROBERT, ABA Journal; ChatGPT creator must turn over 20M chat logs in copyright litigation, federal judge says

"OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, must turn over 20 million chat logs in its copyright litigation with the New York Times and other news media, a federal judge ruled Monday."

OpenAI Must Turn Over 20 Million ChatGPT Logs, Judge Affirms; Bloomberg Law, January 5, 2026

 

Kyle Jahner

, Bloomberg Law; OpenAI Must Turn Over 20 Million ChatGPT Logs, Judge Affirms

"OpenAI Inc. will have to turn over 20 million anonymized ChatGPT logs in a consolidated AI copyright case after it failed to convince a federal judge to throw out a magistrate judge’s order the company said insufficiently weighed privacy concerns.

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang sufficiently considered privacy concerns against the material’s relevance to the ongoing litigation in her discovery ruling in favor of news organization plaintiffs in five lawsuits, District Judge Sidney H. Stein said in an order Monday. She rejected OpenAI’s arguments it should be allowed to run a search of the 20 million-log sample and produce conversations implicating the plaintiffs’ works, saying no case law requires the court to order the least burdensome discovery possible."

AI copyright battles enter pivotal year as US courts weigh fair use; Reuters, January 5, 2026

Blake Brittain , Reuters; AI copyright battles enter pivotal year as US courts weigh fair use

"The sprawling legal fight over tech companies' vast copying of copyrighted material to train their artificial intelligence systems could be entering a decisive phase in 2026.

After a string of fresh lawsuits and a landmark settlement in 2025, the new year promises to bring a wave of rulings that could define how U.S. copyright law applies to generative AI. At stake is whether companies like OpenAI, Google and Meta can rely on the legal doctrine of fair use to shield themselves from liability – or if they must reimburse copyright holders, which could cost billions."

Disney, Warner Urge Judge Against Tossing AI-Copyright Lawsuit; Bloomberg Law, December 26, 2025

Annelise Levy

, Bloomberg Law ; Disney, Warner Urge Judge Against Tossing AI-Copyright Lawsuit

"The studios’ said they’d engaged specialists in Singapore and China and were informed service could take eight to 24 months."

AI Will Continue to Dominate California IP Litigation in 2026; Bloomberg Law, December 26, 2025

Annelise Levy

, Bloomberg Law; AI Will Continue to Dominate California IP Litigation in 2026

"Lawsuits against AI giants OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity are set to continue headlining intellectual property developments in California federal courts in 2026.

In the coming months, we’ll see decisions in two key cases: whether Anthropic PBC’s historic $1.5 billion copyright settlement with authors will receive final approval and if music publishers’ separate copyright lawsuit against the artificial intelligence company will head to trial in September.

Here’s a closer look at the California legal battles that could redefine the landscape of IP law next year."

Lawsuit or License?; Columbia Journalism Review, December 4, 2025

 KLAUDIA JAŹWIŃSKA, Columbia Journalism Review; Lawsuit or License?

"Today, the Tow Center for Digital Journalism is releasing a tracker that monitors developments between news publishers and AI companies—including lawsuits, deals, and grants—based on publicly available information."

Major AI copyright lawsuit settlement involves University of Georgia Press authors; The Red & Black, November 21, 2025

 Sophia Hou, The Red & Black; Major AI copyright lawsuit settlement involves University of Georgia Press authors

"Under the terms of the settlement, Anthropic has agreed to pay at least $1.5 billion, which will be divided among class members whose claims are submitted and approved. This payout amounts to up to $3000 per work. Class members include all legal and beneficial copyright owners of the books included in the Anthropic copyright settlement website’s searchable database. The settlement administrator is currently notifying authors and publishers who may be the legal or beneficial copyright owners of these books.

Among the books listed in the settlement database were hundreds of books published by UGA Press...

Following initial court approval, the settlement will undergo a fairness hearing and any potential appeals before a final decision is made. The deadline to submit a claim form is March 23, 2026. Copyright owners who want to file individual lawsuits against Anthropic have the choice to opt out of the settlement by Jan. 7, 2026.

As one of the first major class action lawsuits involving AI and copyright in the U.S., this settlement has the potential to shape future legal debates over AI and intellectual property."

Anthropic’s settlement with authors may be the ‘first domino to fall’ in AI copyright battles; Fortune, August 27, 2025

 BEATRICE NOLAN, Fortune; Anthropic’s settlement with authors may be the ‘first domino to fall’ in AI copyright battles

"The amount of the settlement was not immediately disclosed, but legal experts not involved in the case said the figure could easily reach into the hundreds of millions. It’s also still unclear how the settlement will be distributed among various copyright holders, which could include large publishing houses as well as individual authors.

The case was the first certified class action against an AI company over the use of copyrighted materials, and the quick settlement, which came just one month after the judge ruled the case could proceed to trial as a class action, is a win for the authors, according to legal experts."

Why the new rulings on AI copyright might actually be good news for publishers; Fast Company, July 9, 2025

 PETE PACHAL, Fast Company; Why the new rulings on AI copyright might actually be good news for publishers

"The outcomes of both cases were more mixed than the headlines suggest, and they are also deeply instructive. Far from closing the door on copyright holders, they point to places where litigants might find a key...

Taken together, the three cases point to a clearer path forward for publishers building copyright cases against Big AI:

Focus on outputs instead of inputs: It’s not enough that someone hoovered up your work. To build a solid case, you need to show that what the AI company did with it reproduced it in some form. So far, no court has definitively decided whether AI outputs are meaningfully different enough to count as “transformative” in the eyes of copyright law, but it should be noted that courts have ruled in the past that copyright violation can occur even when small parts of the work are copied—ifthose parts represent the “heart” of the original.

Show market harm: This looks increasingly like the main battle. Now that we have a lot of data on how AI search engines and chatbots—which, to be clear, are outputs—are affecting the online behavior of news consumers, the case that an AI service harms the media market is easier to make than it was a year ago. In addition, the emergence of licensing deals between publishers and AI companies is evidence that there’s market harm by creating outputs without offering such a deal.

Question source legitimacy: Was the content legally acquired or pirated? The Anthropic case opens this up as a possible attack vector for publishers. If they can prove scraping occurred through paywalls—without subscribing first—that could be a violation even absent any outputs."