Japan’s largest newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun, sues AI startup Perplexity for copyright violations; NiemanLab, August 11, 2025

 ANDREW DECK  , NiemanLab; Japan’s largest newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun, sues AI startup Perplexity for copyright violations

"The Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan’s largest newspaper by circulation, has sued the generative AI startup Perplexity for copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed in Tokyo District Court on August 7, marks the first copyright challenge by a major Japanese news publisher against an AI company.

The filing claims that Perplexity accessed 119,467 articles on Yomiuri’s site between February and June of this year, based on an analysis of its company server logs. Yomiuri alleges the scraping has been used by Perplexity to reproduce the newspaper’s copyrighted articles in responses to user queries without authorization.

In particular, the suit claims Perplexity has violated its “right of reproduction” and its “right to transmit to the public,” two tenets of Japanese law that give copyright holders control over the copying and distribution of their work. The suit seeks nearly $15 million in damages and demands that Perplexity stop reproducing its articles...

Japan’s copyright law allows AI developers to train models on copyrighted material without permission. This leeway is a direct result of a 2018 amendment to Japan’s Copyright Act, meant to encourage AI developmentin the country’s tech sector. The law does not, however, allow for wholesale reproduction of those works, or for AI developers to distribute copies in a way that will “unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner."

AI and copyright – the state of play, post the US AI Action Plan; PetaPixel, July 25, 2025

 Chris Middleton , PetaPixel; AI and copyright – the state of play, post the US AI Action Plan

[Kip Currier: This article effectively skewers the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of the assertion of Trump and the wealthiest corporations on the planet that licensing content to fuel AI LLMs is impossible and too onerous. AI companies would never let users make use of their IP without compensation and permission. Yet, these same companies -- and now Trump via his AI Action Plan --  argue that respecting the copyrights of content holders just isn't "doable".] 

[Excerpt]

"The top six most valuable companies on Earth – in history, in fact – are all in AI and tech. Between them, NVIDIA, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, and Meta already have a market capitalization of $12.9 trillion, roughly equivalent to the value of China's entire economy in 2017-18; or three times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the third largest economy today, Germany, and half that of the US.

Spend trillions of dollars on planet-heating, water-guzzling AI data centers to run the likes of OpenAI's frontier models – systems that (in Trump's view) will be powered by coal? No problem. But license some books when you can scrape millions from known pirate sources? Impossible, it seems.

Whether US courts will agree with that absurd position is unknown."

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."

AI companies start winning the copyright fight; The Guardian, July 1, 2025

 Blake Montgomery , The Guardian; AI companies start winning the copyright fight

"The lawsuits over AI-generated text were filed first, and, as their rulings emerge, the next question in the copyright fight is whether decisions about one type of media will apply to the next.

“The specific media involved in the lawsuit – written works versus images versus videos versus audio – will certainly change the fair-use analysis in each case,” said John Strand, a trademark and copyright attorney with the law firm Wolf Greenfield. “The impact on the market for the copyrighted works is becoming a key factor in the fair-use analysis, and the market for books is different than that for movies.”

To Strand, the cases over images seem more favorable to copyright holders, as the AI models are allegedly producing images identical to the copyrighted ones in the training data.

A bizarre and damning fact was revealed in the Anthropic ruling, too: the company had pirated and stored some 7m books to create a training database for its AI. To remediate its wrongdoing, the company bought physical copies and scanned them, digitizing the text. Now the owner of 7m physical books that no longer held any utility for it, Anthropic destroyed them. The company bought the books, diced them up, scanned the text and threw them away, Ars Technica reports. There are less destructive ways to digitize books, but they are slower. The AI industry is here to move fast and break things.

Anthropic laying waste to millions of books presents a crude literalization of the ravenous consumption of content necessary for AI companies to create their products."

Judge dismisses authors’ copyright lawsuit against Meta over AI training; AP, June 25, 2025

MATT O’BRIEN AND BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP; Judge dismisses authors’ copyright lawsuit against Meta over AI training

"Although Meta prevailed in its request to dismiss the case, it could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory. In his 40-page ruling, Chhabria repeatedly indicated reasons to believe that Meta and other AI companies have turned into serial copyright infringers as they train their technology on books and other works created by humans, and seemed to be inviting other authors to bring cases to his court presented in a manner that would allow them to proceed to trial.

The judge scoffed at arguments that requiring AI companies to adhere to decades-old copyright laws would slow down advances in a crucial technology at a pivotal time. “These products are expected to generate billions, even trillions of dollars for the companies that are developing them. 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 for it.”

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."

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."

A new tool for copyright holders can show if their work is in AI training data; MIT Technology Review, July 25, 2024

• Melissa Heikkiläarchive page

, MIT Technology Review; A new tool for copyright holders can show if their work is in AI training data

"Since the beginning of the generative AI boom, content creators have argued that their work has been scraped into AI models without their consent. But until now, it has been difficult to know whether specific text has actually been used in a training data set. 

Now they have a new way to prove it: “copyright traps” developed by a team at Imperial College London, pieces of hidden text that allow writers and publishers to subtly mark their work in order to later detect whether it has been used in AI models or not. The idea is similar to traps that have been used by copyright holders throughout history—strategies like including fake locations on a map or fake words in a dictionary. 

These AI copyright traps tap into one of the biggest fights in AI. A number of publishers and writers are in the middle of litigation against tech companies, claiming their intellectual property has been scraped into AI training data sets without their permission. The New York Times’ ongoing case against OpenAI is probably the most high-profile of these.  

The code to generate and detect traps is currently available on GitHub, but the team also intends to build a tool that allows people to generate and insert copyright traps themselves." 

Her Music Fell Into Obscurity. Now It’s Back at the Philharmonic.; The New York Times, November 20, 2023

 Garrett Schumann, The New York Times; Her Music Fell Into Obscurity. Now It’s Back at the Philharmonic.

"When Perry died, she had no children and only a few published works. Although scholars have identified about 100 of her manuscripts and scores, dozens cannot be performed or recorded because there is no established copyright holder. As Christopher Wilkins, the music director of the Akron Symphony, said, “all the work is protected; it just hasn’t been licensed, and can’t be until whoever controls it negotiates that.”

Wilkins first found Perry’s compositions in 2020, and marveled at what he saw. She, he said, “may be the most accomplished and celebrated composer ever to emerge from Akron.” He then asked the soprano and scholar Louise Toppin, who leads the African Diaspora Music Project, to help him explore Perry’s output and edit some of her manuscripts...

The Akron Symphony has also engaged a local lawyer to help resolve the copyright ambiguities that ensnare many of Perry’s compositions — a barrier to overcome for those interested in her music, beyond historical practices of exclusion among American institutions."

How a treaty signed in Marrakesh made the Library of Congress more accessible; The Washington Post, February 15, 2022

Danny Freedman, The Washington Post ; How a treaty signed in Marrakesh made the Library of Congress more accessible

"U.S. law already allowed the NLS and authorized nonprofits to create accessible books without permission from the copyright holder. But the treaty extends that to music and scripts, and creates the crucial ability to pool resources with the world. For the NLS to produce its own version of a Nietzsche book in Spanish might’ve taken six months to professionally narrate, edit and build in the descriptive and navigational features that differentiate accessible audio from commercial audiobooks and those made with text-to-speech software. Instead, Corlett-Rivera was able to pluck a recording from a participating library in Spain."

Twitter disables video retweeted by Donald Trump over copyright complaint; The Guardian, July 19, 2020

Reuters via The Guardian; Twitter disables video retweeted by Donald Trump over copyright complaint

"Twitter has disabled a campaign-style video retweeted by Donald Trump, citing a copyright complaint.

The video, which included music from the group Linkin Park, disappeared from the president’s Twitter feed late Saturday with the notification: “This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner.”

Twitter removed the video, which Trump had retweeted from the White House social media director, Dan Scavino, after it received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice from Machine Shop Entertainment, according to a notice posted on the Lumen Database which collects requests for removal of online materials."

The Copyright Lawsuit in Tiger King Is an Outrage; Slate, May 7, 2020

Joshua Lamel, Slate; The Copyright Lawsuit in Tiger King Is an Outrage

"Copyright is the perfect vehicle for SLAPP suits. First of all, copyright is a government-granted, exclusive right to speech. There is no better way to prevent someone from publicly criticizing you than to use copyright law. Copyright lawsuits are expensive and place enormous costs on defendants. Fair use has to be raised once you are sued, so defendants will likely have to spend more. The potential damages are extreme: For every violation of a copyright, you can get $150,000 in statutory damages. Additionally, copyright law has injunctive relief—you can actually stop the speech from happening.

One would think that Congress would recognize this and specifically include copyright in federal anti-SLAPP efforts. But that is not happening anytime soon. Instead, thanks to their lobbying and fundraising, copyright holders have been successful in convincing senior members of Congress in both parties to exclude copyright. These members have told federal anti-SLAPP advocates that they need to be willing to give up copyright for a chance of being successful. There is not a single good policy argument to exclude copyright. Copyright litigation abuse is exactly what anti-SLAPP legislation should be designed to prevent. This type of abuse is the reason we need a federal fix.

In my dream world, the saturation of Joe Exotic’s story will help everyday Americans understand the relevance of copyright law in our daily lives—maybe even spur federal lawmakers to introduce and pass anti-SLAPP law without a special carve-out for copyright."

What the EU’s copyright overhaul means — and what might change for big tech; NiemanLab, Nieman Foundation at Harvard, April 22, 2019

Marcello Rossi, NiemanLab, Nieman Foundation at Harvard; What the EU’s copyright overhaul means — and what might change for big tech

"The activity indeed now moves to the member states. Each of the 28 countries in the EU now has two years to transpose it into its own national laws. Until we see how those laws shake out, especially in countries with struggles over press and internet freedom, both sides of the debate will likely have plenty of room to continue arguing their sides — that it marks a groundbreaking step toward a more balanced, fair internet, or that it will result in a set of legal ambiguities that threaten the freedom of the web."