OpenAI hastily retreats from gung-ho copyright policy after embarrassing Sora video output like AI Sam Altman surrounded by Pokémon saying 'I hope Nintendo doesn't sue us'; PC Gamer, October 5, 2025

 Stevie Bonifield, PC Gamer ; OpenAI hastily retreats from gung-ho copyright policy after embarrassing Sora video output like AI Sam Altman surrounded by Pokémon saying 'I hope Nintendo doesn't sue us'

"This video is just one of many examples, but you'll have a much harder time finding Sora-generated videos containing Marvel or Disney characters. As reported by Automaton, Sora appears to be refusing prompts containing references to American IP, but Japanese IP didn't seem to be getting the same treatment over the past week.

Japanese lawyer and House of Representatives member Akihisa Shiozaki called for action to protect creatives in a post on X (formerly Twitter), which has been translated by Automaton: "I’ve tried out [Sora 2] myself, but I felt that it poses a serious legal and political problem. We need to take immediate action if we want to protect leading Japanese creators and the domestic content industry, and help them further develop. (I wonder why Disney and Marvel characters can’t be displayed).""

Sam Altman says Sora will add ‘granular,’ opt-in copyright controls; TechCrunch, October 4, 2025

 Anthony Ha , TechCrunch; Sam Altman says Sora will add ‘granular,’ opt-in copyright controls

"OpenAI may be reversing course on how it approaches copyright and intellectual property in its new video app Sora.

Prior to Sora’s launch this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that OpenAI had been telling Hollywood studios and agencies that they needed to explicitly opt out if they didn’t want their IP to be included in Sora-generated videos.

Despite being invite-only, the app quickly climbed to the top of the App Store charts. Sora’s most distinctive feature may be its “cameos,” where users can upload their biometric data to see their digital likeness featured in AI-generated videos.

At the same time, users also seem to delight in flouting copyright laws by creating videos with popular, studio-owned characters. In some cases, those characters might even criticize the company’s approach to copyright, for example in videos where Pikachu and SpongeBob interact with deepfakes of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

In a blog post published Friday, Altman said the company is already planning two changes to Sora, first by giving copyright holders “more granular control over generation of characters, similar to the opt-in model for likeness but with additional controls.”"

Harvard Professors May Be Eligible for Payments in $1.5 Billion AI Copyright Settlement; The Harvard Crimson, October 1, 2025

 Victoria D. Rengel, The Harvard Crimson;  Harvard Professors May Be Eligible for Payments in $1.5 Billion AI Copyright Settlement

"Following mediation, the plaintiffs and defendants filed a motion for the preliminary approval of a settlement on Sept. 5, which included an agreement from Anthropic that it will destroy its pirated databases and pay $1.5 billion in damages to a group of authors and publishers.

On Sept. 25, a California federal judge granted preliminary approval for a settlement, the largest in the history of copyright cases in the U.S.

Each member of the class will receive a payment of approximately $3,000 per pirated work.

Authors whose works are in the databases are not notified separately, but instead must submit their contact information to receive a formal notice of the class action — meaning a number of authors, including many Harvard professors, may be unaware that their works were pirated by Anthropic.

Lynch said Anthropic’s nonconsensual use of her work undermines the purpose behind why she, and other scholars, write and publish their work.

“All of us at Harvard publish, but we thought when we were publishing that we are doing that — to communicate to other human beings,” she said. “Not to be fed into this mill.”"

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."

OpenAI's new Sora video generator to require copyright holders to opt out, WSJ reports; Reuters, September 29, 2025

 Reuters; OpenAI's new Sora video generator to require copyright holders to opt out, WSJ reports

"OpenAI is planning to release a new version of its Sora generator that creates videos featuring copyrighted material, unless rights holders opt out of having their work appear, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The artificial intelligence startup began notifying talent agencies and studios over the past week about the opt-out process and the product, which it plans to release in the coming days, the report said.

The new process would mean movie studios and other intellectual property owners would have to explicitly ask OpenAI not to include their copyrighted material in videos Sora creates, according to the report."

I Sued Anthropic, and the Unthinkable Happened; The New York Times, September 29, 2025

 Andrea Bartz , The New York Times; I Sued Anthropic, and the Unthinkable Happened

"In August 2024, I became one of three named plaintiffs leading a class-action lawsuit against the A.I. company Anthropic for pirating my books and hundreds of thousands of other books to train its A.I. The fight felt daunting, almost preposterous: me — a queer, female thriller writer — versus a company now worth $183 billion?

Thanks to the relentless work of everyone on my legal team, the unthinkable happened: Anthropic agreed to pay authors and publishers $1.5 billion in the largest copyright settlement in history. A federal judge preliminarily approved the agreement last week.

This settlement sends a clear message to the Big Tech companies splashing generative A.I. over every app and page and program: You are not above the law. And it should signal to consumers everywhere that A.I. isn’t an unstoppable tsunami about to overwhelm us. Now is the time for ordinary Americans to recognize our agency and act to put in place the guardrails we want.

The settlement isn’t perfect. It’s absurd that it took an army of lawyers to demonstrate what any 10-year-old knows is true: Thou shalt not steal. At around $3,000 per work, shared by the author and publisher, the damages are far from life-changing (and, some argue, a slap on the wrist for a company flush with cash). I also disagree with the judge’s ruling that, had Anthropic acquired the books legally, training its chatbot on them would have been “fair use.” I write my novels to engage human minds — not to empower an algorithm to mimic my voice and spit out commodity knockoffs to compete directly against my originals in the marketplace, nor to make that algorithm’s creators unfathomably wealthy and powerful.

But as my fellow plaintiff Kirk Wallace Johnson put it, this is “the beginning of a fight on behalf of humans that don’t believe we have to sacrifice everything on the altar of A.I.” Anthropic will destroy its trove of illegally downloaded books; its competitors should take heed to get out of the business of piracy as well. Dozens of A.I. copyright lawsuits have been filed against OpenAI, Microsoft and other companies, led in part by Sylvia Day, Jonathan Franzen, David Baldacci, John Grisham, Stacy Schiff and George R. R. Martin. (The New York Times has also brought a suit against OpenAI and Microsoft.)

Though a settlement isn’t legal precedent, Bartz v. Anthropic may serve as a test case for other A.I. lawsuits, the first domino to fall in an industry whose “move fast, break things” modus operandi led to large-scale theft. Among the plaintiffs of other cases are voice actors, visual artists, record labels, YouTubers, media companies and stock-photo libraries, diverse stakeholders who’ve watched Big Tech encroach on their territory with little regard for copyright law...

Now the book publishing industry has sent a message to all A.I. companies: Our intellectual property isn’t yours for the taking, and you cannot act with impunity. This settlement is an opening gambit in a critical battle that will be waged for years to come."

Morgan & Morgan takes Disney to court over rights to feature ‘Steamboat Willie’ in law firm ads; News6, September 17, 2025

Phil Landeros , News6; Morgan & Morgan takes Disney to court over rights to feature ‘Steamboat Willie’ in law firm ads

"Morgan & Morgan, Florida’s largest law firm, has filed a lawsuit asking a judge to declare the law firm’s planned use of the iconic film in an ad is protected against trademark claims from Disney. Steamboat Willie entered the public domain on Jan. 1, 2024, when Disney’s copyright protection expired.

The proposed ad depicts Mickey Mouse in a boat collision with a car, after which the driver seeks legal representation from Morgan & Morgan. According to the filing, before moving forward with the advertisement, the law firm sought assurance from Disney that the commercial wouldn’t trigger legal action. The filing said Disney would not comply."

Gotta Deport ‘Em All? How Should Nintendo Respond To Immigrant-Hunting Social Media Post From DHS?; Above The Law, September 24, 2025

 Steven Chung , Above The Law; Gotta Deport ‘Em All? How Should Nintendo Respond To Immigrant-Hunting Social Media Post From DHS?

"Last Monday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted a one-minute video on X (formerly Twitter) and other social media platforms, splicing together clips from the Pokémon anime intro with footage of border patrol agents arresting individuals, all set to the first season’s theme song.

The post’s caption was the famous tagline “Gotta Catch ‘Em All!” At the video’s end, it displayed Pokémon cards featuring photos of convicted criminals facing potential deportation...

Reactions were sharply divided: some users found it hilarious and praised its creativity, while others condemned it as dehumanizing and inappropriate, especially for using a children’s franchise to promote immigration enforcement.

Commenters from both sides speculated on how Nintendo would respond, given the company’s reputation for aggressively enforcing its intellectual property rights — evidenced by actions like issuing DMCA takedowns against over 8,500 GitHub repositories for the Yuzu emulator in 2024 and targeting hundreds of fan games on platforms like Game Jolt in multiple waves since 2016. As of now, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company have not issued any public statement on the matter, despite requests for comment from media outlets. However, Nintendo has at least three viable options."

Copyright and AI: Controlling Rights and Managing Risks; Morgan Lewis, September 23, 2025

JOSHUA M. DALTON, Partner, Boston; COLLEEN GANIN, Partner, New York; MICHAEL R. PFEUFFER, Senior Attorney, Pittsburgh, Morgan Lewis; Copyright and AI: Controlling Rights and Managing Risks

"The law on copyright and AI is still developing, with courts and policymakers testing the limits of authorship, infringement, and fair use. Companies should expect continued uncertainty and rapid change in this space."

Screw the money — Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement sucks for writers; TechCrunch, September 5, 2025

Amanda Silberling , TechCrunch; Screw the money — Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement sucks for writers

"But writers aren’t getting this settlement because their work was fed to an AI — this is just a costly slap on the wrist for Anthropic, a company that just raised another $13 billion, because it illegally downloaded books instead of buying them.

In June, federal judge William Alsup sided with Anthropic and ruled that it is, indeed, legal to train AI on copyrighted material. The judge argues that this use case is “transformative” enough to be protected by the fair use doctrine, a carve-out of copyright law that hasn’t been updated since 1976.

“Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different,” the judge said.

It was the piracy — not the AI training — that moved Judge Alsup to bring the case to trial, but with Anthropic’s settlement, a trial is no longer necessary."

The 18th-century legal case that changed the face of music copyright law; WIPO Magazine, September 18, 2025

Eyal Brook, Partner, Head of Artificial Intelligence, S. Horowitz & Co , WIPO Magazine;The 18th-century legal case that changed the face of music copyright law

"As we stand at the threshold of the AI revolution in music creation, perhaps the most valuable lesson from this history is not any particular legal doctrine but rather the recognition that our conceptions of musical works and authorship are not fixed but evolving.

Imagine what would have happened had Berne negotiators decided to define the term in 1886. The “musical work” as a legal concept was born from Johann Christian Bach’s determination to assert his creative rights – and it continues to transform with each new technological development and artistic innovation.

The challenge for copyright law in the 21st century is to keep fulfilling copyright’s fundamental purpose: to recognize and reward human creativity in all its forms. This will require not just legal ingenuity but also a willingness to reconsider our most basic assumptions about what music is and how it comes into being.

Bach’s legacy, then, is not just the precedent that he established but the ongoing conversation he initiated – an unfinished symphony of legal thought that continues to evolve with each new technological revolution and artistic movement.

As we face the challenges of AI and whatever technologies may follow, we would do well to remember that the questions we ask today about ownership and creativity echo those first raised in a London courtroom almost 250 years ago by a composer determined to claim what he believed was rightfully his."

Trump Seeks Full Court Rehearing on Copyright Chief Perlmutter; Bloomberg Law, September 18, 2025

 

Kyle Jahner

, Bloomberg Law; Trump Seeks Full Court Rehearing on Copyright Chief Perlmutter

"The Trump Administration asked the full D.C. Circuit to rehear a successful bid by Shira Perlmutter to be temporarily restored as the head of the US Copyright Office."

Protecting Your Intellectual Property: What You Need to Know About Copyright; Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association (SFWA), September 11, 2025

 Victoria Strauss of Writer Beware®, Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association (SFWA) ; Protecting Your Intellectual Property: What You Need to Know About Copyright

"Copyright is a complex subject about which there are many misconceptions.

I was reminded of that this week, thanks to an email from an author who discovered that several of their books were included in one of the databases of pirated works used by the AI company Anthropic for AI training. The author wanted to know whether they were eligible to be part of the gigantic $1.5 billion settlement Anthropic has agreed to pay to compensate writers for its misuse of their intellectual property. (You can read more about the lawsuit, and the settlement, here.)

One of the criteria for eligibility, set by the court, is that copyrights to the pirated works must have been properly registered with the US Copyright Office before Anthropic downloaded the databases. And indeed, the author’s books were all registered in a timely manner…but not with the Copyright Office. Instead, the author used a website called Copyrighted.com, which offers a kind of faux registration using timestamps and its own certificates.

I had to tell the author that no, they weren’t eligible for compensation for their pirated books. In the United States, there’s no equivalent or substitute for the US Copyright Office’s official registration process. The author couldn’t even use the materials they’d gotten from Coprighted.com as prima facie evidence of copyright ownership. Again, only official registration provides that.

In this article, I’m going to cover the basics of copyright, offer some warnings, and dispel some myths. I know that much of what follows will be familiar to a lot of readers—but as the example above shows, knowledge gaps not only exist, but can be damaging…and as always in the writing biz, knowledge is your greatest ally and your best defense. I hope even the most copyright-savvy readers will find something useful here."

Is ‘The Pitt’ Really an ‘ER’ Spinoff? Michael Crichton’s Estate Says It Is.; The New York Times, September 12, 2025

 Nicholas Kulish, The New York Times ; Is ‘The Pitt’ Really an ‘ER’ Spinoff? Michael Crichton’s Estate Says It Is.

The estate of the best-selling author, which has intellectual property rights to “ER,” and the creators of the new hit TV show are waging a legal battle over whether it’s a stealth reboot.

"On Nov. 4, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the complaint, citing their constitutional free speech rights and arguing that “The Pitt” is not a derivative work of “ER.” They emphasized that the new series is about the post-Covid world, reminding the judge that it deals with events that arose after Mr. Crichton’s death...

Rewatching “ER” through the lens of the lawsuit — as a jury might be asked to — can be a strange experience. Is the struggle over whether to put a dying elderly patient onto a ventilator a distinct plot point (this would support Team Crichton) or an everyday tragedy in a large urban hospital (Team Pitt)?

“‘The Pitt’ has no connection to ‘ER’ — it does not use ‘ER’’s intellectual property, characters, plot, setting or narrative pacing,” the defendants said. “While both series are medical dramas set in a hospital, this concept is hardly unique.” They name-checked “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Chicago Med,” “House” and “The Good Doctor.”...

The case “could serve as a model for how to figure out how much things are worth in the streaming space,” said Jennifer Porst, a professor of media industry studies at Emory University in Atlanta."

Perplexity's definition of copyright gets it sued by the dictionary; Engadget, September 11, 2025

Anna Washenko, Engadget; Perplexity's definition of copyright gets it sued by the dictionary

"Merriam-Webster and its parent company Encyclopedia Britannica are the latest to take on AI in court. The plaintiffs have sued Perplexity, claiming that AI company's "answer engine" product unlawfully copies their copyrighted materials. They are also alleging copyright infringement for instances where Perplexity's AI creates false or inaccurate hallucinations that it then wrongly attributes to Britannica or Merriam-Webster. The complaint, filed in New York federal court, is seeking unspecified monetary damages and an order that blocks Perplexity from misusing their content."

Judge Delays Preliminary Approval in Anthropic Copyright Settlement; Publishers Weekly, September 9, 2025

  Jim Milliot, Publishers Weekly; Judge Delays Preliminary Approval in Anthropic Copyright Settlement

"Alsup signaled his discomfort with the proposal in a filing released the evening before the September 8 hearing, writing that he was “disappointed” that attorneys representing the author plaintiffs had left “important questions to be answered in the future, including respecting the Works List, Class List, Claim Form." He was especially concerned for works with multiple claimants with regards to the notification process, voicing worry over what would happen if one party wanted to opt-out of the settlement and the other did not...

In a statement, Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger said the Guild was “confused” by the court’s suggestion that the Guild and AAP were working behind the scenes in ways that could pressure authors to accept the settlement “when that is precisely the opposite of our proposed role as informational advisors to the working group.”

The goal of the working group, which had been proposed by lawyers for the class, “is to ensure that authors’ interests are fully represented and to bring our expertise... to the discussions with complete transparency,” Rasenberger continued. “There are industry norms that we want to make sure are accounted for.”...

AAP CEO Maria Pallante offered an even more vigorous explanation of AAP’s role, as well as the role of the Guild, in the proceedings. “The Association of American Publishers and the Authors’ Guild are not-for-profits that have worked hard to support counsel in the case and to make sure that authors and publishers have the information they need,” Pallante said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Court today demonstrated a lack of understanding of how the publishing industry works.”"

Class-Wide Relief:The Sleeping Bear of AI Litigation Is Starting to Wake Up; Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, October 2025

 Anna B. Naydonov, Mark Davies and Jules Lee, Intellectual Property &Technology Law Journal; Class-Wide Relief:The Sleeping Bear of AI Litigation Is Starting to Wake Up

"Probably no intellectual property (IP) topic in the last several years has gotten more attention than the litigation over the use of the claimed copyrighted content in training artificial intelligence (AI) models.The issue of whether fair use applies to save the day for AI developers is rightfully deemed critical, if not existential, for AI innovation. But whether class relief – and the astronomical damages that may come with it – is available in these cases is a question of no less significance."

Anthropic settles with authors in first-of-its-kind AI copyright infringement lawsuit; NPR, September 5, 2025

Chloe Veltman , NPR; Anthropic settles with authors in first-of-its-kind AI copyright infringement lawsuit

"In one of the largest copyright settlements involving generative artificial intelligence, Anthropic AI, a leading company in the generative AI space, has agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by a group of authors.

If the court approves the settlement, Anthropic will compensate authors around $3,000 for each of the estimated 500,000 books covered by the settlement.

The settlement, which U.S. Senior District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco will consider approving next week, is in a case that involved the first substantive decision on how fair use applies to generative AI systems. It also suggests an inflection point in the ongoing legal fights between the creative industries and the AI companies accused of illegally using artistic works to train the large language models that underpin their widely-used AI systems.

The fair use doctrine enables copyrighted works to be used by third parties without the copyright holder's consent in some circumstances, such as when illustrating a point in a news article. AI companies trying to make the case for the use of copyrighted works to train their generative AI models commonly invoke fair use. But authors and other creative industry plaintiffs have been pushing back.

"This landmark settlement will be the largest publicly reported copyright recovery in history," the settlement motion states, arguing that it will "provide meaningful compensation" to authors and "set a precedent of AI companies paying for their use of pirated websites."

"This settlement marks the beginning of a necessary evolution toward a legitimate, market-based licensing scheme for training data," said Cecilia Ziniti, a tech industry lawyer and former Ninth Circuit clerk who is not involved in this specific case but has been following it closely. "It's not the end of AI, but the start of a more mature, sustainable ecosystem where creators are compensated, much like how the music industry adapted to digital distribution.""

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."