Two AI copyright cases, two very different outcomes – here’s why; The Conversation, December 1, 2025

 Hayleigh Bosher, Reader in Intellectual Property Law, Brunel University of London , The Conversation; Two AI copyright cases, two very different outcomes – here’s why

"Artificial intelligence companies and the creative industries are locked in an ongoing battle, being played out in the courts. The thread that pulls all these lawsuits together is copyright.

There are now over 60 ongoing lawsuits in the US where creators and rightsholders are suing AI companies. Meanwhile, we have recently seen decisions in the first court cases from the UK and Germany – here’s what happened in those...

Although the circumstances of the cases are slightly different, the heart of the issue was the same. Do AI models reproduce copyright-protected content in their training process and in generating outputs? The German court decided they do, whereas the UK court took a different view.

Both cases could be appealed and others are underway, so things may change. But the ending we want to see is one where AI and the creative industries come together in agreement. This would preferably happen with the use of copyright licences that benefit them both.

Importantly, it would also come with the consent of – and fair payment to – creators of the content that makes both their industries go round."

Artificial intelligence, intellectual property, and human rights: mapping the legal landscape in European health systems; npj Health Systems, November 25, 2025

 

Robin van Kessel, Jelena Schmidt, 

Hannah van Kolfschooten, 

Sam Feudo, 

Katie Young, 

Laura Valtere, 

Timo Minssen & 

Elias Mossialos 

, npj Health Systems ; Artificial intelligence, intellectual property, and human rights: mapping the legal landscape in European health systems

"Abstract

Intellectual property (IP) rights and IP-related rights, such as trade secrets and regulatory exclusivities, play a crucial role in the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. However, possible interactions may be anticipated when comparing the legal relationships formed by these rights with those established by human rights. This study synthesises 53 laws and treaties illustrating the IP landscape for AI in health systems across Europe and examines their intersections with health-focused human rights. Our analysis reveals that a great variety of datasets, software, hardware, output, AI model architecture, data bases, and graphical user interfaces can be subject to IP protection. Although codified limitations and exceptions on IP and IP-related rights exist, interpretation of their conditions and scope permits for diverse interpretations and is left to the discretion of courts. Comparing these rights to health-focused human rights highlights tensions between promoting innovation and ensuring accessibility, quality, and equity in health systems, as well as between human rights ideals and the protection of European digital sovereignty. As these rights often pursue conflicting objectives and may involve trade-offs, future research should explore new ways to reconcile these objectives and foster solidarity in sharing the risks and benefits among stakeholders."

Copyright Piracy at the Supreme Court In Cox v. Sony: is an internet provider liable for digital thieves?; The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2025

 The Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal; Copyright Piracy at the Supreme Court" In Cox v. Sony, is an internet provider liable for digital thieves?

"If a college student pirates music files, can his broadband provider be liable for his copyright infringement? That’s the question before the Supreme Court on Monday in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, which tugs at the tension between protecting intellectual property and the internet."

Estate of Johnny Cash suing Coca-Cola for using tribute act in advert; The Guardian, November 27, 2025

Laura Snapes, The Guardian; Estate of Johnny Cash suing Coca-Cola for using tribute act in advert

"The estate of Johnny Cash is suing Coca-Cola for illegally hiring a tribute act to impersonate the late US country singer in an advertisement that plays between college football games.

The case has been filed under the Elvis Act of Tennessee, made effective last year, which protects a person’s voice from exploitation without consent. The estate said that while it has previously licensed Cash’s songs, Coca-Cola did not approach them for permission in this instance."

White Bird Clinic sues Willamette Valley Crisis Care over misuse of trade secrets, copyright infringement; Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), November 24, 2025

 Nathan Wilk , Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB); White Bird Clinic sues Willamette Valley Crisis Care over misuse of trade secrets, copyright infringement

"Eugene’s White Bird Clinic is suing a rival nonprofit, Willamette Valley Crisis Care, over copyright infringement and the stealing of trade secrets.

WVCC was founded after White Bird shuttered CAHOOTS services in Eugene in April. The new nonprofit hopes to launch a similar mobile crisis intervention program and has multiple former CAHOOTS staff members on board.

White Bird is now alleging that minutes before WVCC co-founder Alese “Dandy” Colehour sent a resignation letter to White Bird earlier this month, they downloaded confidential client information, training manuals and other materials to give to the newer non-profit.

White Bird is also accusing the WVCC of infringing on its CAHOOTS trademark through advertising materials and other public outreach efforts, and of passing off White Bird’s services as its own."

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."

Eli Lilly Reaches $1 Trillion in Value, Buoyed by Demand for Its Weight Loss Drugs; The New York Times, November 21, 2025

  Rebecca Robbins , The New York Times; Eli Lilly Reaches $1 Trillion in Value, Buoyed by Demand for Its Weight Loss Drugs

"Pharmaceuticals is a notoriously cyclical business. Companies buoyed by once-in-a-generation product lines flounder after their blockbuster drugs lose patent protection."

Paul McCartney joins music industry protest against AI with silent track; The Guardian, November 17, 2025

Robert Booth, The Guardian ; Paul McCartney joins music industry protest against AI with silent track

"At two minutes 45 seconds it’s about the same length as With a Little Help From My Friends. But Paul McCartney’s first new recording in five years lacks the sing-along tune and jaunty guitar chops because there’s barely anything there.

The former Beatle, arguably Britain’s greatest living songwriter, is releasing a track of an almost completely silent recording studio as part of a music industry protest against copyright theft by artificial intelligence companies.

In place of catchy melodies and evocative lyrics there is only quiet hiss and the odd clatter. It suggests that if AI companies unfairly exploit musicians’ intellectual property to train their generative AI models, the creative ecosystem will be wrecked and original music silenced.

McCartney, 83 and currently touring North America, has added the track to the B-side of an LP called Is This What We Want?, which is filled with other silent recordings and will be pressed on vinyl and released later this month."

‘South Park’ addresses AI-generated videos and copyright with Totoro, Trump and Bluey; Los Angeles Times, November 13, 2025

 Kaitlyn Huamani , Los Angeles Times; ‘South Park’ addresses AI-generated videos and copyright with Totoro, Trump and Bluey

"Droopy Dog, Rocky, Bullwinkle, Popeye and even the beloved preschool character Bluey are mentioned or make appearances in the episode. Representatives for Studio Ghibli also appear, offering a voice of reason in the madness, saying, “You cannot just do whatever you want with someone else’s IP.”"

AI Has Sent Copyright Laws Into Chaos. What You Need to Know About Your Rights Online; CNET, November 11, 2025

 Katelyn Chedraoui, CNET ; AI Has Sent Copyright Laws Into Chaos. What You Need to Know About Your Rights Online

"You might not think about copyright very often, but we are all copyright owners and authors. In the age of generative AI, copyright has quickly become one of the most important issues in the development and outputs of chatbots, image and video generators...

What does all of this mean for the future?

Copyright owners are in a bit of a holding pattern for now. But beyond the legal and ethical implications, copyright in the age of AI raises important questions about the value of creative work, the cost of innovation and the ways in which we need or ought to have government intervention and protections."

Japanese Companies Tell OpenAI to Stop Infringing On Its IP; Gizmodo, November 2, 2025

 JUSTIN CARTER , Gizmodo; Japanese Companies Tell OpenAI to Stop Infringing On Its IP

"The Content Overseas Distribution Association (CODA), which represents several major Japanese entertainment companies such as TV studio Toei and game developer Square Enix, recently sent a written request calling on OpenAI to end its unauthorized use of their IP to train its recently launched Sora 2 generative AI.

Nearly 20 co-signers have accused the tech company of copyright infringement, alleging a “large portion” of Sora 2 content “closely resembles Japanese content or images [as] a result of using Japanese content as machine learning data.” The letter mentioned OpenAI’s policy of using copyrighted works unless the owner explicitly asks to opt out, but argues under Japanese law, it should instead be an opt-in system, since permission for copyrighted works is generally required beforehand."

‘Progressive’ Tech Group Asks Trump to Block AI Copyright Cases; The American Prospect, October 31, 2025

DAVID DAYEN, The American Prospect; ‘Progressive’ Tech Group Asks Trump to Block AI Copyright Cases

"The Chamber of Progress, a self-styled “progressive” industry trade group supported by most of the biggest tech platforms, has urged the Trump administration to intervene in a litany of copyright cases involving artificial intelligence firms, to try to stop authors and publishers from having their work used for training AI models without permission.

The pleading comes as Anthropic prepares to pay authors $1.5 billion, the largest award in the history of copyright law, for pirating their work, in a settlement announced last month. OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, and Meta are named defendants in the more than 50 active lawsuits over AI intellectual-property theft.

In a letter to Michael Kratsios, the lead science adviser to President Trump, the Chamber of Progress estimates that AI companies could be liable under the Copyright Act for up to $1.5 trillion for stealing copyrighted work on which to train their models. The letter’s authors claim that this represents “an existential risk” to AI companies, and that the cases should be tossed out under a “fair use” standard.

The Chamber of Progress’s campaign to promote fair use, which they have created a campaign around called “Generate and Create,” comes as at least three of the nonprofit organization’s past or current backers are being sued over copyright claims: Meta, Google, and the AI art generator Midjourney. Another current funder, Nvidia, relies heavily on AI development for its continued success, and venture capital firm a16z, with several AI startups in its portfolio, also funds the nonprofit."

As Trump Weighs Sale of Advanced A.I. Chips to China, Critics Sound Alarm; The New York Times, October 29, 2025

 Ana Swanson and Tripp Mickle, The New York Times; As Trump Weighs Sale of Advanced A.I. Chips to China, Critics Sound Alarm

"Mr. Trump’s comments signaled a major potential change for U.S. policy that many Washington officials warn poses a national security risk. Selling such advanced A.I. chips to China is currently banned, and U.S. officials have worked for years to restrain Beijing’s access to the cutting-edge technology.

The president’s reversal, if it comes to pass, would have widespread implications. Nvidia, which has emphasized the importance of maintaining access to the Chinese market, would reap new sales. But critics have argued that A.I. technology is important enough to potentially shift the balance of power in a strategic competition between the United States and China."

From CLICK to CRIME: investigating intellectual property crime in the digital age; Europol, October 2025

 Europol; From CLICK to CRIME: investigating intellectual property crime in the digital age

"A new wave of online crime is putting consumers, businesses, and the wider economy at risk - from fake medicines and forged wine to illegal streaming platforms. The increase in counterfeit goods and the criminal abuse of intellectual property affect our daily lives more than many realise, with consequences that go far beyond lost revenue.

The conference “From CLICK to CRIME: Investigating Intellectual Property Crime in the Digital Age” was held on 22 and 23 October 2025 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Jointly organised by Europol, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Bulgaria’s General Directorate Combating Organised Crime (GDBOP), the event highlighted the vital importance of collaboration in tackling online crime. The participants reaffirmed the importance of strong collective efforts in tackling online-enabled intellectual property crime to protect consumers, safeguard creativity and uphold trust in the digital economy.

Consider a few key examples of the major threats posed by intellectual property crime:

• Illegal streaming and sharing platforms not only drain the cinema, publishing, musical and software industries but also expose viewers, especially children, to unregulated and potentially harmful content.
• Fake pharmaceuticals, supplements and illicit doping substances, promoted on social media and websites, are produced in clandestine labs without testing or quality control. Dangerous products, circulating in gyms and among amateur athletes, can cause severe or even fatal health effects.
• Counterfeit toys, perfumes, and cosmetics are also trafficked online and carry hidden dangers, trading low prices for high risks to health and safety.

Behind many of these schemes are well-structured organised criminal networks that view intellectual property crime not as a secondary activity, but as a lucrative business model."

The platform exposing exactly how much copyrighted art is used by AI tools; The Guardian, October 18, 2025

Dan Milmo , The Guardian; The platform exposing exactly how much copyrighted art is used by AI tools

"The US tech platform Vermillio tracks use of a client’s intellectual property online and claims it is possible to trace, approximately, the percentage to which an AI generated image has drawn on pre-existing copyrighted material."

OpenAI Blocks Videos of Martin Luther King Jr. After Racist Depictions; The New York Times, October 17, 2025

Claire Moses, The New York Times ; OpenAI Blocks Videos of Martin Luther King Jr. After Racist Depictions

[Kip Currier: This latest tech company debacle is another example of breakdowns in technology design thinking and ethical leadership. No one in all of OpenAI could foresee that Sora 2.0 might be used in these ways? Or they did but didn't care? Either way, this is morally reckless and/or negligent conduct.

The leaders and design folks at OpenAI (and other tech companies) would be well-advised to look at Tool 6 in An Ethical Toolkit for Engineering/Design Practice, created by Santa Clara University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics:

Tool 6: Think About the Terrible People: Positive thinking about our work, as Tool 5 reminds us, is an important part of ethical design. But we must not envision our work being used only by the wisest and best people, in the wisest and best ways. In reality, technology is power, and there will always be those who wish to abuse that power. This tool helps design teams to manage the risks associated with technology abuse.

https://www.scu.edu/ethics-in-technology-practice/ethical-toolkit/

The "Move Fast and Break Things" ethos is alive and well in Big Tech.]

[Excerpt]

"OpenAI said Thursday that it was blocking people from creating videos using the image of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with its Sora app after users created vulgar and racist depictions of him.

The company said it had made the decision at the request of the King Center as well as Dr. Bernice King, the civil rights leader’s daughter, who had objected to the videos.

The announcement was another effort by OpenAI to respond to criticism of its tools, which critics say operate with few safeguards.

“Some users generated disrespectful depictions of Dr. King’s image,” OpenAI said in a statement. “OpenAI has paused generations depicting Dr. King as it strengthens guardrails for historical figures.”"

Can You Trademark Peanut Butter and Jelly? Smucker’s Says Yes.; The New York Times, October 17, 2025

Yan Zhuang, The New York Times; Can You Trademark Peanut Butter and Jelly? Smucker’s Says Yes.

 "J.M. Smucker, the maker of Uncrustables, is suing Trader Joe’s, accusing the grocery store chain of infringing on its trademarks by selling a copycat version of its popular snack...

You generally can’t trademark foods. Sandwich recipes, or certain combinations of sandwich ingredients, are also “quite plainly not a copyrightable work,” an appeals judge ruled in 2015 in a case involving a Puerto Rico man who had attempted to trademark his chicken sandwich.

But you can trademark the specific shape or configuration of a food product. In this case, Smucker’s says, it has trademarked “a round pie-like shape with distinct peripheral undulated crimping” — a design it says Trader Joe’s has copied.

Smucker’s also accused Trader Joe’s of infringing on its trademark image of “a round crustless sandwich with a bite taken out showing filling on the inside,” which the grocery store chain uses on its packaging.

“Smucker does not take issue with others in the marketplace selling prepackaged, frozen, thaw-and-eat crustless sandwiches. But it cannot allow others to use Smucker’s valuable intellectual property to make such sales,” the company said in its filing."

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."

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

Marina Hyde , 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."

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."