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."

Anthropic Settles High-Profile AI Copyright Lawsuit Brought by Book Authors; Wired, August 26, 2025

 Kate Knobs, Wired ; Anthropic Settles High-Profile AI Copyright Lawsuit Brought by Book Authors

"ANTHROPIC HAS REACHED a preliminary settlement in a class action lawsuit brought by a group of prominent authors, marking a major turn in one of the most significant ongoing AI copyright lawsuits in history. The move will allow Anthropic to avoid what could have been a financially devastating outcome in court."

Anthropic’s surprise settlement adds new wrinkle in AI copyright war; Reuters, August 27, 2025

Blake Brittain, Reuters; Anthropic’s surprise settlement adds new wrinkle in AI copyright war

"Anthropic's class action settlement with a group of U.S. authors this week was a first, but legal experts said the case's distinct qualities complicate the deal's potential influence on a wave of ongoing copyright lawsuits against other artificial-intelligence focused companies like OpenAI, Microsoft and Meta Platforms.

Amazon-backed Anthropic was under particular pressure, with a trial looming in December after a judge found it liable for pirating millions of copyrighted books. The terms of the settlement, which require a judge's approval, are not yet public. And U.S. courts have just begun to wrestle with novel copyright questions related to generative AI, which could prompt other defendants to hold out for favorable rulings."

Think you actually own all those movies you’ve been buying digitally? Think again; The Guardian, August 27, 2025

  J Oliver Conroy, The Guardian; Think you actually own all those movies you’ve been buying digitally? Think again

[Kip Currier: This article underscores why the First Sale Doctrine (Section 109a) of the U.S. Copyright Statute is such a boon for consumers and public libraries: when you (or a library) buy a physical book, you actually do own that physical book (though the copyright to that book remains with the copyright holder, which is an important distinction to remember).

The First Sale Doctrine is what enables a library to purchase physical books and then lend them to as many borrowers as it wants. Not so for digital books, which are generally licensed by publishers to users and libraries who pay for licenses to those digital books.

The bottom line: You as a digital content licensee only retain access to the digital items you license, so long as the holder of that license -- the licensor -- says you may have access to its licensed content.

This distinction between physical and digital content has put great pressure on library budgets to provide users with access to electronic resources, while libraries face ever-increasing fees from licensors. This fiscally-fraught environment has been exacerbated by Trump 2.0's dismantling of IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services) grants that supported the licensing of ebooks and audiobooks by libraries. Some states have said "enough" and are attempting to rebalance what some see as an unequal power dynamic between publishers and libraries/users. See "Libraries Pay More for E-Books. Some States Want to Change That. Proposed legislation would pressure publishers to adjust borrowing limits and find other ways to widen access." New York Times (July 16, 2025)]

[Excerpt]

"Regardless of whether the lawsuit is ultimately successful, it speaks to a real problem in an age when people access films, television series, music and video games through fickle online platforms: impermanence. The advent of streaming promised a world of digital riches in which we could access libraries of our favorite content whenever we wanted. It hasn’t exactly worked out that way...

The problem is that you aren’t downloading the movie, to own and watch forever; you’re just getting access to it on Amazon’s servers – a right that only lasts as long as Amazon also has access to the film, which depends on capricious licensing agreements that vary from title to title. A month or five years from now, that license may expire – and the movie will disappear from your Amazon library. Yet the $14.99 you paid does not reappear in your pocket."

Can you copyright artwork made using AI?; NPR, August 25, 2025

 

Emma Jacobs, Wailin Wong, Julia Ritchey, Kate Concannon , NPR; Can you copyright artwork made using AI?

"Copyright is the legal system used to reward and protect creations made by humans. But with growing adoption of artificial intelligence, does copyright extend to artwork that’s made using AI? Today on the show, how a test case over a Vincent Van Gogh mashup is testing the boundaries of copyright law."

New Ruling Makes Old Postings a New Copyright Problem; Lexology, August 21, 2025

 Gordon Feinblatt LLC, Lexology; New Ruling Makes Old Postings a New Copyright Problem

 "Go through your website and delete any old photos and music you do not own or have a license to use. Every company and internet user should be diligent and not post any images, music, or other content unless they are certain they have the rights to do so. Lesson number one is: do not merely pluck material from the internet and use it for yourself.

Lesson number two is that copyright owners can now look back more than three years and obtain damages for a long history of infringement. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that copyright damages can reach back to the beginning of the infringing usage so long as a copyright infringement case is properly brought. This means that historical usage of infringing works can rack up many years of damages."

Who owns the copyright for AI work?; Financial Times, August 24, 2025

  BARRY SCANNELL, Financial Times; Who owns the copyright for AI work?

"Generative artificial intelligence poses two copyright puzzles. The first is the widely discussed question of compensation for work used to train AI models. The second, which has yet to receive as much attention, concerns the work that AI produces. Copyright is granted to authors. So what happens to work that has no human author?"

Suetopia: Generative AI is a lawsuit waiting to happen to your business; The Register, August 12, 2025

Adam Pitch, The Register ; Suetopia: Generative AI is a lawsuit waiting to happen to your business

"More and more US companies are using generative AI as a way to save money they might otherwise pay creative professionals. But they're not thinking about the legal bills.

You could be asking an AI to create public-facing communications for your company, such as a logo, promotional copy, or an entire website. If those materials happen to look like copyrighted works, you may be hearing from a lawyer.

"It's pretty clear that if you create something that's substantially similar to a copyrighted work that an infringement has occurred, unless it's for a fair use purpose," said Kit Walsh, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Director of AI and Access-to-Knowledge Legal Projects."

Using AI for Work Could Land You on the Receiving End of a Nasty Lawsuit; Futurism, August 23, 2025

JOE WILKINS , Futurism; Using AI for Work Could Land You on the Receiving End of a Nasty Lawsuit

"For all its hype, artificial intelligence isn't without its psychological, environmental, and even spiritual hazards.

Perhaps the most pressing concern on an individual level, though, is that it puts users on the hook for a nearly infinite number of legal hazards — even at work, as it turns out.

A recent breakdown by The Register highlights the legal dangers of AI use, especially in corporate settings. If you use generative AI software to spit out graphics, press releases, logos, or videos, you and your employer could end up facing six-figure damages, the publication warns.

This is thanks to the vast archive of copyrighted data that virtually all commercial generative AI models are trained on.

The Register uses Nintendo's Mario as a prime example of how one might stumble, intentionally or not, into a massive copyright lawsuit, regardless of intent to infringe: if you use AI to generate a cutesy mascot for your plumbing company that looks too much like the iconic videogame character, you could easily find yourself in the legal crosshairs of the notoriously litigious corporation.

"The real harm comes from the attorney's fees that you can get saddled with," intellectual property lawyer Benjamin Bedrava told the publication. "Because you could have a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in attorney's fees over something where the license would have been fifteen hundred dollars.""

Canadian father and son named as major 'copyright pirates' jailed 5 years unless they give up their secrets; National Post, August 21, 2025

 Adrian Humphreys, National Post; Canadian father and son named as major 'copyright pirates' jailed 5 years unless they give up their secrets

 "Two Ontario men accused of being the scofflaw pirates behind years of large-scale digital streaming of copyrighted movies and TV have been sentenced to five years in prison — not for piracy, but for contempt of court — unless they reveal passwords and accounts.

Some of the biggest entertainment media companies on the continent — Bell, Rogers, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Universal, Columbia Pictures and Warner Bros. — spent years chasing the digital pirates behind a bootleg service known as Smoothstreams, which was available globally from five user-friendly online platforms offering a vast collection of movies, TV and live sports since at least 2018.

Lawyers, private investigators, and technology specialists for the corporate giants began their hunt seven years ago, launching what is described as a “sophisticated, extensive, and resource and time-intensive investigation.”...

Ever since, Antonio Macciacchera, 73, of Woodbridge, Ont., and his son, Marshall Macciacchera, of Barrie, Ont., have been in a legal grapple, defying the might of global media heavyweights."

Victory! Ninth Circuit Limits Intrusive DMCA Subpoenas; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), August 18, 2025

 TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Victory! Ninth Circuit Limits Intrusive DMCA Subpoenas

"Fortunately, Section 512(h) has an important limitation that protects users.  Over two decades ago, several federal appeals courts ruled that Section 512(h) subpoenas cannot be issued to ISPs. Now, in In re Internet Subscribers of Cox Communications, LLC, the Ninth Circuit agreed, as EFF urged it to in our amicus brief."

CHATBOT CHEATING IN ETHICS CLASS; Christianity Today, August 18, 2025

MYLES WERNTZ, Christianity Today; CHATBOT CHEATING IN ETHICS CLASS

"The ethical and practical problems are legion: copyright disputes, ecological effects, a possible economic bubble, and plain deceit. Still, for an undergraduate on a deadline, the appeal is obvious."

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."

Judge rejects Anthropic bid to appeal copyright ruling, postpone trial; Reuters, August 12, 2025

 Blake Brittain , Reuters; Judge rejects Anthropic bid to appeal copyright ruling, postpone trial

"A federal judge in California has denied a request from Anthropic to immediately appeal a ruling that could place the artificial intelligence company on the hook for billions of dollars in damages for allegedly pirating authors' copyrighted books.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup said on Monday that Anthropic must wait until after a scheduled December jury trial to appeal his decision that the company is not shielded from liability for pirating millions of books to train its AI-powered chatbot Claude."

97 years ago today, Disney copyrighted the Mickey Mouse character; Trib Live, August 12, 2025

 PATRICK VARINE , Tri Live; 97 years ago today, Disney copyrighted the Mickey Mouse character

"On Aug. 12, 1928, an ambitious young man named Walt Disney filed a copyright application for Mickey Mouse, a new animated character he’d created alongside animator Ub Iwerks.

That turned out to be a successful business move for Disney, who would go on to build his character into an international entertainment empire."

News Corp CEO Robert Thomson slams AI firms for stealing copyrighted material like Trump’s ‘Art of the Deal’; New York Post, August 6, 2025

 Ariel Zilber, New York Post ; News Corp CEO Robert Thomson slams AI firms for stealing copyrighted material like Trump’s ‘Art of the Deal’

"The media executive said the voracious appetite of the AI firms to train their bots on proprietary content without paying for it risks eroding America’s edge over rival nations.

“Much is made of the competition with China, but America’s advantage is ingenuity and creativity, not bits and bytes, not watts but wit,” he said.

“To undermine that comparative advantage by stripping away IP rights is to vandalize our virtuosity.”"

A copyright lawsuit over pirated books could result in ‘business-ending’ damages for Anthropic; Fortune, July 28, 2025

  BEATRICE NOLAN , Fortune; A copyright lawsuit over pirated books could result in ‘business-ending’ damages for Anthropic

"A class-action lawsuit against Anthropic could expose the AI company to billions in copyright damages over its alleged use of pirated books from shadow libraries like LibGen and PiLiMi to train its models. While a federal judge ruled that training on lawfully obtained books may qualify as fair use, the court will hold a separate trial to address the allegedly illegal acquisition and storage of copyrighted works. Legal experts warn that statutory damages could be severe, with estimates ranging from $1 billion to over $100 billion."

Storm chaser Reed Timmer sues Kansas company for using his tornado video; Topeka Capital-Journal, July 24, 2025

 Tim Hrenchir , Topeka Capital-Journal; Storm chaser Reed Timmer sues Kansas company for using his tornado video

"Celebrity storm chaser Reed Timmer has sued a Kansas roofing and construction company alleging it committed copyright infringement by using video on Instagram that he took during a 2022 tornado at Andover, Kansas."

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."

Trump’s Comments Undermine AI Action Plan, Threaten Copyright; Publishers Weekly, July 23, 2025

 Ed Nawotka  , Publishers Weekly; Trump’s Comments Undermine AI Action Plan, Threaten Copyright

"Senate bill proposes 'opt-in' legislation

Trump's comments come on the heels of the introduction, by U.S. senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), of the AI Accountability and Personal Data Protection Act this past Monday following a hearing last week on AI companies' copyright infringement. The bipartisan legislation aims to hold AI firms liable for using copyrighted works or personal data without acquiring explicit consent to train AI models. It would empower individuals—including writers, artists, and content creators—to sue companies in federal court if their data or copyrighted works are used without consent. It also supports class action lawsuits and advocates for violators to pay robust penalties.

"AI companies are robbing the American people blind while leaving artists, writers, and other creators with zero recourse," said Hawley. "It’s time for Congress to give the American worker their day in court to protect their personal data and creative works. My bipartisan legislation would finally empower working Americans who now find their livelihoods in the crosshairs of Big Tech’s lawlessness."

"This bill embodies a bipartisan consensus that AI safeguards are urgent—because the technology is moving at accelerating speed, and so are dangers to privacy," added Blumenthal. "Enforceable rules can put consumers back in control of their data, and help bar abuses. Tech companies must be held accountable—and liable legally—when they breach consumer privacy, collecting, monetizing or sharing personal information without express consent. Consumers must be given rights and remedies—and legal tools to make them real—not relying on government enforcement alone."