The Copyright Conversation; Library Journal, February 3, 2026

 Hallie Rich, Library Journal; The Copyright Conversation

"Welcome to the Library Journal Roundtable. The theme for today is copyright. The context is libraries. My name is Jim Neal. I’m University Librarian Emeritus at Columbia University in New York and Senior Policy Fellow at the American Library Association. I will serve as the moderator.

Allow me to introduce the members of the panel. Jonathan Band is the counsel to the Library Copyright Alliance. He works with the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries. Sara Benson is Associate Professor and Copyright Librarian at the University of Illinois Library. She’s also an affiliate professor at the School of Information of the Siebel Center for Design, the European Union Center and the Center for Global Studies. Rick Anderson is the University Librarian at Brigham Young University. Kyle Courtney is Director of Copyright and Information Policy at Harvard and founder of two library nonprofits, Library Futures and the eBook Study Group.

All of these individuals are copyright and information policy experts with years and years of deep involvement in education and advocacy around the importance of copyright for libraries, the laws and legislation which influence our work in libraries."

Minions copyright decision drives Spanish Olympic figure skater, well, bananas; The New York Times, February 2, 2026

 Alex Valdes, The New York Times; Minions copyright decision drives Spanish Olympic figure skater, well, bananas

"Spanish figure skater Tomàs-Llorenç Guarino Sabaté might not speak Minion, but if he did, he might have plenty to say.

With only days before the start of competition at the Milan Cortina Winter Olympics, Guarino Sabaté was informed that, because of copyright issues, he will not be able to perform his routines to the Minions music mix he has been using throughout the 2025-26 season. He has also done his routines in an outfit reminiscent of the movie characters: a yellow T-shirt and blue overalls.

Universal Pictures, which owns the subsidiary Illumination, which in turn owns the Minions franchise, told Guarino Sabaté he cannot use the music. In an Instagram post, the skater said he “followed all due procedures and submitted my music through the ISU ClicknClear system in August, and competed with this program for the entire season.”

However, Guarino Sabaté was told Friday — one week before the start of the skating competition — that he did not have permission...

In a statement, the International Skating Union said: “Copyright clearances can represent a challenge for all artistic sports. While the ISU does not have a contractual relationship with ClicknClear, we continue to work collaboratively with rights clearance stakeholders to ensure that thrilling performances can be accompanied by stirring music.”...

ClicknClear is a “music rights tech company delivering officially licensed music to choreographed sports athletes/teams and performing arts ensembles that use music in their routines worldwide,” according to its website."

Figure skater forced to scrap Olympic routine after Minions music copyright dispute; The Guardian, February 2, 2026

 Bryan Armen Graham, The Guardian ; Figure skater forced to scrap Olympic routine after Minions music copyright dispute

"The Spanish figure skater Tomàs-Llorenç Guarino Sabaté faces a last-minute scramble to redesign his Olympic short program after a copyright dispute blocked him from using music from the Minions franchise just days before competition begins at the Milano Cortina Winter Games.

The six-time Spanish national champion, who is set to make his Olympic debut in the men’s singles event, said he learned late last week that the routine he has performed throughout the 2025-26 season would not be cleared for Olympic use. 

Guarino Sabaté said he had submitted the music through the International Skating Union’s recommended rights-clearance process months ago and had competed with the program without issue during the season, including at last month’s European championships in Sheffield.

The ruling means the 26-year-old must now adapt or replace choreography he has refined for months, a daunting task in a sport where musical timing and muscle memory are inseparable...

Rights to the Minions property are controlled by Illumination and parent studio Universal Pictures. It was not immediately clear which specific licensing hurdle ultimately blocked Olympic clearance, but music licensing in figure skating has grown increasingly labyrinthine in recent years, particularly as the sport has shifted toward contemporary popular music...

“It’s a complex issue, frankly, because the music industry has no common clearance platform,” Smith said. “There are multiple buckets of rights, and within those buckets the clearance process isn’t done on a single platform. Tracking tools have improved, but the facilitated process just isn’t there.”

Students Are Finding New Ways to Cheat on the SAT; The New York Times, January 28, 2026

Stephanie Saul, The New York Times; Students Are Finding New Ways to Cheat on the SAT

Sites in China are selling test questions, and online forums offer software that can bypass test protections, according to tutors and testing experts raising alarms.

"Three years ago, after nearly a century of testing on paper, the College Board rolled out a new digital SAT.

Students who had long relied on No. 2 pencils to take the exam would instead use their laptops. One advantage, the College Board said, was a reduced chance of cheating, in part because delivering the test online meant the questions would vary for each student.

Now, however, worries are growing that the College Board’s security isn’t fail safe. Fueling the concerns are what appear to be copies of recently administered digital SAT questions that have been posted on the internet — on social media sites as well as websites primarily housed in China...

Test questions also have been sold on Telegram, a Dubai-based platform, and posted on Scribd, a subscription digital repository of data. Students have also circulated questions among themselves on Google docs, the European tutor said. Many of the tests have been removed from Scribd, apparently at the College Board’s request. A spokesman for Scribd, based in San Francisco, said the company responds to valid requests to remove copyrighted material.

But the College Board has been unable to fight bluebook.plus, according to an email exchange with the College Board that the tutor shared."

Copyright and creativity in Episode 2 of the EUIPO Podcast; European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), January 28, 2026

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); Copyright and creativity in Episode 2 of the EUIPO Podcast

"Copyright and creativity in Episode 2 of the EUIPO Podcast

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has released the second episode of its podcast series ‘Creative Sparks: From inspiration to innovation’, focusing on copyright and the launch of the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre.

Titled “The idea makers: Europe’s new home for copyright”, the episode looks at how copyright supports creativity across Europe. From music, film and publishing to design, digital content and emerging technologies such as generative artificial intelligence.

It brings together institutional and creator perspectives through two guests: Véronique Delforge, copyright legal expert at the EUIPO, and Nathalie Boyer, actress, voice-over artist, Board member of ADAMI and President of the ADAMI Foundation for the Citizen Artist. They discuss creative innovation, why copyright remains essential in a rapidly evolving creative landscape and how creators can better understand and exercise their rights.

The conversation highlights the growing complexity of copyright in a digital and cross-border environment, the specific challenges faced by performers and cultural organisations, and the need for clarity, transparency and trusted information. Particular attention is given to the impact of streaming platforms and generative AI on creative works, authorship and remuneration.

The episode also introduces the EUIPO Copyright Knowledge Centre, launched to bring together reliable information, research, tools and resources in one place.

Making IP closer

The podcast is part of the EUIPO’s determination to make intellectual property more accessible to all and engaging for Europeans, businesses and creators.

The EUIPO will issue monthly episodes and explore topics related to creativity and intellectual property as a tool to foster innovation and enhance competitiveness in EU in the digital era, among many others."

The $1.5 Billion Reckoning: AI Copyright and the 2026 Regulatory Minefield; JD Supra, January 27, 2026

 Rob Robinson, JD Supra ; The $1.5 Billion Reckoning: AI Copyright and the 2026 Regulatory Minefield

"In the silent digital halls of early 2026, the era of “ask for forgiveness later” has finally hit a $1.5 billion brick wall. As legal frameworks in Brussels and New Delhi solidify, the wild west of AI training data is being partitioned into clearly marked zones of liability and license. For those who manage information, secure data, or navigate the murky waters of eDiscovery, this landscape is no longer a theoretical debate—it is an active regulatory battlefield where every byte of training data carries a price tag."

Music publishers sue Anthropic for $3B over ‘flagrant piracy’ of 20,000 works; TechCrunch, January 29, 2026

 Amanda Silberling, TechCrunch; Music publishers sue Anthropic for $3B over ‘flagrant piracy’ of 20,000 works 

"A cohort of music publishers led by Concord Music Group and Universal Music Group are suing Anthropic, saying the company illegally downloaded more than 20,000 copyrighted songs, including sheet music, song lyrics, and musical compositions.

The publishers said in a statement on Wednesday that the damages could amount to more than $3 billion, which would be one of the largest non-class action copyright cases filed in U.S. history.

This lawsuit was filed by the same legal team from the Bartz v. Anthropic case, in which a group of fiction and nonfiction authors similarly accused the AI company of using their copyrighted works to train products like Claude."

Copyrighted art, mobile phones, Greenland: welcome to our age of shameless theft; The Guardian, January 28, 2026

 Jonathan Liew , The Guardian; Copyrighted art, mobile phones, Greenland: welcome to our age of shameless theft

"Last week I discovered that an article I wrote about the England cricket team has already been copied and repackaged, verbatim and without permission, by an Indian website. What is the appropriate response here? Decry and sue? Shrug and move on? I ponder the question as I stroll through my local supermarket, where the mackerel fillets are wreathed in metal security chains and the dishwasher tabs have to be requested from the storeroom like an illicit little treat.

On the way home, I screenshot and crop a news article and share it to one of my WhatsApp groups. In another group, a family member has posted an AI-generated video (“forwarded many times”) of Donald Trump getting his head shaved by Xi Jinping while Joe Biden laughs in the background. I watch the mindless slop on my phone as I walk along the main road, instinctively gripping my phone a little tighter as I do so.

Increasingly, by small and imperceptible degrees, we seem to live in a world defined by petty theft; petty not in its scale or volume but by its sense of entitlement and impunity. A joke, a phone, an article, the island of Greenland, the entire canon of published literature, a bag of dishwasher tablets: everything, it seems, is fair game. How did we get to this point, and where does it lead us?"

YouTubers sue Snap for alleged copyright infringement in training its AI models; TechCrunch, January 26, 2026

 Sarah Perez, TechCrunch; YouTubers sue Snap for alleged copyright infringement in training its AI models

"A group of YouTubers who are suing tech giants for scraping their videos without permission to train AI models has now added Snap to their list of defendants. The plaintiffs — internet content creators behind a trio of YouTube channels with roughly 6.2 million collective subscribers — allege that Snap has trained its AI systems on their video content for use in AI features like the app’s “Imagine Lens,” which allows users to edit images using text prompts.

The plaintiffs earlier filed similar lawsuits against Nvidia, Meta, and ByteDance over similar matters.

In the newly filed proposed class action suit, filed on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the YouTubers specifically call out Snap for its use of a large-scale, video-language dataset known as HD-VILA-100M, and others that were designed for only academic and research purposes. To use these datasets for commercial purposes, the plaintiffs claim Snap circumvented YouTube’s technological restrictions, terms of service, and licensing limitations, which prohibit commercial use."

High Court Shouldn’t Weigh AI’s Copyright Author Status, US Says; Bloomberg Law, January 26, 2026

 

Kyle Jahner

, Bloomberg Law; High Court Shouldn’t Weigh AI’s Copyright Author Status, US Says

"The US Solicitor General advised the US Supreme Court not to take up a computer scientist’s petition to consider whether AI could be an author under copyright law.

A decision foreclosing nonhuman authorship for Stephen Thaler’s Creativity Machine didn’t conflict with any in other circuits or raise complicated questions about protections for artificial intelligence-assisted work by human authors, the Jan. 23 filing said."

Search Engines, AI, And The Long Fight Over Fair Use; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 23, 2026

 JOE MULLIN , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Search Engines, AI, And The Long Fight Over Fair Use

"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.

Long before generative AI, copyright holders warned that new technologies for reading and analyzing information would destroy creativity. Internet search engines, they argued, were infringement machines—tools that copied copyrighted works at scale without permission. As they had with earlier information technologies like the photocopier and the VCR, copyright owners sued.

Courts disagreed. They recognized that copying works in order to understand, index, and locate information is a classic fair use—and a necessary condition for a free and open internet.

Today, the same argument is being recycled against AI. It’s whether copyright owners should be allowed to control how others analyze, reuse, and build on existing works."

How researchers got AI to quote copyrighted books word for word; Le Monde, January 24, 2026

 Nicolas Six , Le Monde; How researchers got AI to quote copyrighted books word for word

"Where does artificial intelligence acquire its knowledge? From an enormous trove of texts used for training. These typically include vast numbers of articles from Wikipedia, but also a wide range of other writings, such as the massive Books3 dataset, which aggregates nearly 200,000 books without the authors' permission. Some proponents of conversational AI present these training datasets as a form of "universal knowledge" that transcends copyright law, adding that, protected or not, AIs do not memorize these works verbatim and only store fragmented information.

This argument has been challenged by a series of studies, the latest of which, published in early January by researchers at Stanford University and Yale University, is particularly revealing. Ahmed Ahmed and his coauthors managed to prompt four mainstream AI programs, disconnected from the internet to ensure no new information was retrieved, to recite entire pages from books."

Copyright Office Doubles Down on AI Authorship Stance in the Midjourney Case; The Fashion Law (TFL), January 23, 2026

 TFL, The Fashion Law (TFL); Copyright Office Doubles Down on AI Authorship Stance in the Midjourney Case

"The U.S. Copyright Office is standing firm in its position that works generated by artificial intelligence (“AI”), even when refined or curated by a human user, do not qualify for copyright protection unless the human author clearly limits their claim to their own original contributions. In a newly filed response and cross-motion for summary judgment, the Office is asking a federal court in Colorado to deny artist Jason Allen’s motion for summary judgment and uphold its refusal to register the work at issue, arguing that the dispute turns on the Copyright Act’s long-established human authorship requirement and not hostility toward AI."

Actors And Musicians Help Launch “Stealing Isn’t Innovation” Campaign To Protest Big Tech’s Use Of Copyrighted Works In AI Models; Deadline, January 22, 2026

 Ted Johnson , Deadline; Actors And Musicians Help Launch “Stealing Isn’t Innovation” Campaign To Protest Big Tech’s Use Of Copyrighted Works In AI Models

"A long list of musicians, content creators and actors are among those who have signed on to a new campaign to protest tech giants’ use of copyrighted works in their AI models.

The list of signees includes actors like Scarlett Johansson and Cate Blanchett, music groups like REM and authors like Brad Meltzer. 

The ‘Stealing Isn’t Innovation” campaign is being led by the Human Artistry Campaign. It states that “respect and protect” the Creative community, “some of the biggest tech companies, many backed by private equity and other funders, are using American creators’ work to build AI platforms without authorization or regard for copyright law.”"

Copyright Law Set to Govern AI Under Trump’s Executive Order; Bloomberg Law, January 23, 2026

 Michael McLaughlin , Bloomberg Law; Copyright Law Set to Govern AI Under Trump’s Executive Order

[Kip Currier: I posted this Bloomberg Law article excerpt to the Canvas site for the graduate students in my Intellectual Property and Open Movements course this term, along with the following note:

Copyright law is the potential giant-slayer vis-a-vis AI tech companies that have used copyrighted works as AI training data, without permission or compensation.

Information professionals who have IP acumen (e.g. copyright law and fair use familiarity) will have vital advantages on the job market and in their organizations.]

[Excerpt]

"The legal landscape for artificial intelligence is entering a period of rapid consolidation. With President Donald Trump’s executive order in December 2025 establishing a national AI framework, the era of conflicting state-level rules may be drawing to a close.

But this doesn’t signal a reduction in AI-related legal risk. It marks the beginning of a different kind of scrutiny—one centered not on regulatory innovation but on the most powerful legal instrument already available to federal courts: copyright law.

The lesson emerging from recent AI litigation, most prominently Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, is that the greatest potential liability to AI developers doesn’t come from what their models generate. It comes from how those models were trained, and from the provenance of the content used in that training.

As the federal government asserts primacy over AI governance, the decisive question will be whether developers can demonstrate that their training corpora were acquired lawfully, licensed appropriately (unless in the public domain), and documented thoroughly."

FREE WEBINAR: REGISTER: AI, Intellectual Property and the Emerging Legal Landscape; National Press Foundation, Thursday, January 22, 2026

 National Press Foundation; REGISTER: AI, Intellectual Property and the Emerging Legal Landscape

"Artificial intelligence is colliding with U.S. copyright law in ways that could reshape journalism, publishing, software, and the creative economy.

The intersection of AI and intellectual property has become one of the most consequential legal battles of the digital age, with roughly 70 federal lawsuits filed against AI companies and copyright claims on works ranging from literary and visual work to music and sound recording to computer programs. Billions of dollars are at stake.

Courts are now deciding what constitutes “fair use,” whether and how AI companies may use copyrighted material to build models, what licensing is required, and who bears responsibility when AI outputs resemble protected works. The legal decisions will shape how news, art, and knowledge are produced — and who gets paid for them.

To help journalists better understand and report on the developing legal issues of AI and IP, join the National Press Foundation and a panel of experts for a wide-ranging discussion around the stakes, impact and potential solutions. Experts in technology and innovation as well as law and economics join journalists in this free online briefing 12-1 p.m. ET on Thursday, January 22, 2026."

AI companies will fail. We can salvage something from the wreckage; The Guardian, January 18, 2026

 Cory Doctorow, The Guardian; AI companies will fail. We can salvage something from the wreckage

"The growth narrative of AI is that AI will disrupt labor markets. I use “disrupt” here in its most disreputable tech-bro sense.

The promise of AI – the promise AI companies make to investors – is that there will be AI that can do your job, and when your boss fires you and replaces you with AI, he will keep half of your salary for himself and give the other half to the AI company.

That is the $13tn growth story that Morgan Stanley is telling. It’s why big investors are giving AI companies hundreds of billions of dollars. And because they are piling in, normies are also getting sucked in, risking their retirement savings and their family’s financial security.

Now, if AI could do your job, this would still be a problem. We would have to figure out what to do with all these unemployed people.

But AI can’t do your job. It can help you do your job, but that does not mean it is going to save anyone money...

After more than 20 years of being consistently wrong and terrible for artists’ rights, the US Copyright Office has finally done something gloriously, wonderfully right. All through this AI bubble, the Copyright Office has maintained – correctly – that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted, because copyright is exclusively for humans. That is why the “monkey selfie” is in the public domain. Copyright is only awarded to works of human creative expression that are fixed in a tangible medium.

And not only has the Copyright Office taken this position, they have defended it vigorously in court, repeatedly winning judgments to uphold this principle.

The fact that every AI-created work is in the public domain means that if Getty or Disney or Universal or Hearst newspapers use AI to generate works – then anyone else can take those works, copy them, sell them or give them away for nothing. And the only thing those companies hate more than paying creative workers, is having other people take their stuff without permission...

AI is a bubble and bubbles are terrible.

Bubbles transfer the life savings of normal people who are just trying to have a dignified retirement to the wealthiest and most unethical people in our society, and every bubble eventually bursts, taking their savings with it."

ESDEEKID CALLS OUT THE CHAINSMOKERS OVER ‘4 RAWS’ REMIX; Billboard, January 3, 2026

 Jessica Lynch, Billboard; ESDEEKID CALLS OUT THE CHAINSMOKERS OVER ‘4 RAWS’ REMIX

"UK rapper EsDeeKid has publicly called out The Chainsmokers after the duo shared a remix of his track “4 Raws” that he says was released without his approval.

In a post on X on Jan. 2, EsDeeKid wrote that the remix was “getting NUKED,” writing, “that chainsmokers remix is getting NUKED mate wow please. don’t remix my sh– and think it’s cool to post to all DSPs.”"

Copyright laws need to modernize to include fan-made edits; The Miami Hurricane, January 14, 2026

 Marissa Levinson, The Miami Hurricane; Copyright laws need to modernize to include fan-made edits

[Kip Currier: Unfortunately, this University of Miami's student newspaper's Op-Ed -- Copyright laws need to modernize to include fan-made edits -- contains staggeringly inaccurate interpretations and assertions about copyright law and fair use. 

No one wanting to make informed decisions on copyright-related matters should rely on the writer's cherry-picked aspects of copyright law that are then stitched together to make wildly erroneous conclusions.

Copyright literacy is essential.]

 

[Excerpt]

"I can’t even count the amount of times I’ve been scrolling through my saved folders on TikTok, Instagram or X to watch video edits of clips from my favorite TV shows, only to find nothing but a shell of what once used to be there, with a body of text over it. It reads: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim.” 

Video edits of shows and movies, which are often paired with trending songs as the audios, have gained traction on social media platforms among hundreds of fan bases. Navigating this new age of fan-generated edits comes with confusion. As copyright laws based on precedent aren’t current enough to guide regulations on this new type of content, video edits deserve to be protected under copyright law.

Are edits legal?

Fan-made video edits range from less than 30-seconds to a few minutes long. This poses the question of whether they are legal in terms of copyright. The law gives copyright the “power ‘to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Investors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries,’” according to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. 

This means, under the Copyright Act of 1976, “original works of authorship fixed in tangible medium of expression” are protected. According to the four exemptions of the copyright law, video edits are protected by the first amendment and therefore, should be legal to publish."

Adviser in Anne Frank case suggests VPNs alone don’t break copyright borders; Courthouse News Service, January 15, 2026

 EUNSEO HONG , Courthouse News Service; Adviser in Anne Frank case suggests VPNs alone don’t break copyright borders

"The dispute centers on a clash between the Anne Frank Fonds, which holds the copyright for certain versions of her diary in the Netherlands, and a group of academic and cultural institutions that published a comprehensive scholarly edition of the manuscripts online. While the diary entered the public domain in several EU countries in 2016, including Germany, Belgium and Italy, copyright protection in the Netherlands runs until 2037.

To account for that divide, the publishers limited access where the diary is still protected, using geoblocking and on-screen warnings. The Fonds challenged that setup, arguing that the possibility of access through VPN services was enough to make the publication unlawful in the Netherlands.

Rantos rejected that logic, warning that tying liability to the mere possibility of circumvention would make territorial copyright unworkable online.

“It is common ground that, in both the virtual and real world, no security measure is absolutely inviolable,” he wrote, underscoring that EU law does not expect publishers to do the impossible.

In his view, copyright responsibility turns on a publisher’s conduct, not on every workaround devised by determined users, unless the safeguards are intentionally flimsy or built to be easily defeated.

Stef van Gompel, a professor of intellectual property law at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, said the advocate general got it right in drawing a clear line between a publisher’s actions and what users might do to get around them. Treating VPN workarounds alone as a copyright violation, he said, would stretch the law too far.

“Otherwise, this would mark the end of online territorial licensing of copyright in the EU and jeopardize the free flow of information online,” van Gompel said. He warned that otherwise, works published where they are in the public domain could end up effectively off-limits online “if the work is still in copyright in any other country in the world.”"