Randy Maniloff
, Wall Street Journal; I Have a Dream—and a CopyrightClarence Jones had the presence of mind to protect Martin Luther King’s speech.
"Clarence Jones, lawyer and speechwriter for Martin Luther King Jr., died last month at 95. King’s confidante is credited with helping the civil-rights leader draft the famous 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech."
Leaders League; Dr. Philipp Mels, orka: "The biggest battle in the 21st century will be AI versus Copyright"
"Dr. Philipp Mels, Managing Partner at orka, comments on the use of AI in the context of intellectual property rights, trade secrets, and data protection.
LEADERS LEAGUE: In addition to the AI Act, which areas of law require particular attention when developing, operating, and using AI?
Philipp Mels: In addition to the AI Act, the most important areas of law regarding the use of AI are clearly intellectual property rights, trade secret protection, and data protection...
Why is the use of trade secrets in AI systems so legally risky?
In practice, the most relevant risk for companies is not so much the violation of third-party trade secrets, but rather the fact that employees may enter trade secrets into the AI system. This can be seen as evidence that the company, as the owner of the trade secret, has failed to take the necessary and appropriate measures to ensure confidentiality. As a result, the company loses the protection afforded to those trade secrets.
How significant is the conflict between AI providers and operators on the one hand, and creators or copyright holders on the other?
You may be surprised by my choice of words. The biggest battle that providers and operators of AI systems must fight in the 21st century is against copyright holders, who understandably want to take action against the infringement of their copyrights."
Jim Milliot , Publishers Weekly; Publishers Sue WeLib for Copyright Infringement
"Fresh off of last month’s victory against pirate web site Anna’s Archive, 13 publishers across all segments of the industry have allied to sue yet another pirate site, WeLib, for copyright infringement.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges that the operators of WeLib “ copied the source code and most of the contents of” Anna's Archive."
The plaintiffs include the Big Five, Cengage, Elsevier, McGraw Hill, Pearson, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley.
“Defendants boast that they have reproduced ‘an endless collection of literature, research papers, and education materials,’ none of which they own or have licensed,” the complaint alleges.
According to its website and repeated in the lawsuit, WeLib hosts over 43 million books and 98 million papers, and its stolen collection of literary works has purportedly attracted over 80,000 active monthly users. According to the website, WeLib’s users have illegally accessed over 51 million books in the last month alone, or an average of over 1.7 million books per day."
Vanessa Miller, The Gazette; UI Center for Intellectual Freedom book on hold over copyright concerns
"A book the University of Iowa-based Center for Intellectual Freedom director announcedwas in the works late last year is on hold over copyright concerns about who might get the proceeds — despite UI assurances they would go to the center."
J. Jekkie Kim, Ariel Soiffer , JD Supra; AI In the Public Interest: Authorship & Copyright in the Age of AI
"In the Public Interest is excited to present the new miniseries, “AI In the Public Interest.” These episodes will examine AI’s impact on the legal landscape and its broader implications for the day-to-day operations of organizations across industries. With the wider prevalence of companies utilizing AI to assist in decision making and determine future frameworks, these conversations will not only take stock of the current state of AI, but will also offer practical insights into what the future may hold.
The first episode kicks off with a conversation between co-host Jekkie Kim and Partner and Chair of WilmerHale’s AI Technology Transactions Practice Ariel Soiffer. Together they discuss AI through the lens of ownership and copyright, examining guidance from the Copyright Office as to who and what can be a content author. Soiffer also identifies what current protections are in place for those attempting to copyright content that has been created with the involvement of AI. He stresses how important it is for creators and companies alike to document their creative outputs and offers a look into the increasingly complex questions surrounding authorship."
Kyodo News, Japan Wire; Japan underlines stance on copyright works after Trump anime video post
"A Japanese minister on Friday underlined the government's stance on unauthorized use of copyrighted works, after U.S. President Donald Trump posted a video on social media appearing to depict him as the hero of anime series "Naruto."
Without commenting directly on the video, Kimi Onoda, minister for the "Cool Japan" strategy of promoting Japanese cultural exports, told a press conference that the "basic principle" of obtaining permission from rights holders to use copyrighted material "applies equally when the user is a public institution."
Senay Boztas, The Guardian; Dutch far-right party pays damages to court artist after changing image with AI
"A Dutch court artist has received damages after an MP for the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) used one of her drawings without permission and manipulated it with AI to make the subjects look more menacing.
Petra Urban, a court artist for 19 years, was shocked to discover a drawing she had made last year of two Syrian brothers jailed for the murder of their sister had been reworked and used in a video on Instagram and Facebook by the party’s Noord-Brabant region...
Under Dutch law, creators are not only protected by copyright but also have moral rights to object to any distortion of their work that could harm their reputation. There was widespread shock in May after Urban shared the images with fellow court reporters, and the case had widespread press coverage.
Urban said that after her union issued a legal demand for licensing rights and damages, the PVV MP Maikel Boon called her to apologise and has now paid the damages – which have not been made public.
Since the MP had previously been accused of using AI to manipulate images for campaign purposes, she felt “no mercy” in demanding compensation. “I hope it’s clear that this is a worrying development and that we need to stay alert,” she said. “You need to be able to assume that journalistic work is written, drawn, photographed or filmed as neutrally as possible. If this is manipulated, then the flood gates are open. There’s no knowing where it will end.”...
The MP has publicly accepted responsibility and told De Telegraaf he had thought an altered image would no longer be subject to copyright but that it had been a “very stupid act”."
Julia Burdelski and Megan Trotter, TribLive ; Primanti Bros. faces lawsuit over mural
"A local artist in a lawsuit filed Thursday accused Primanti Bros. of reproducing a mural he painted at the sandwich shop’s Market Square location without his permission.
Artist James Kanfoush in the lawsuit claimed Primanti Bros. violated copyright rules and the Visual Artists Rights Act by displaying replicas of his mural at their Cranberry and Grove City restaurants.
Kanfoush in 1997 and 1998 created an original mural featuring famous Pittsburgh sports figures at the restaurant’s Market Square site. The artwork includes Kanfoush’s name and contact information."
SYDNEY HAULENBEEK , Courthouse News Service; AI company argues its use of scraped Westlaw legal data was transformative
"“Fair use ruling here brings into question the core technology of the AI revolution,” Mark S. Davies of White & Case in Washington, attorney for ROSS, argued...
“This is a copyright case,” he said. “It’s an interesting case, it raises lots of issues, but it’s a copyright case and the point of copyright is progress.”
“Copyright is not a privilege reserved for the well-behaved,” Davies added."
Rebecca Beyer, Harvard Law Today; Copyright law ‘struggling’ to parse AI’s ascendancy
"Deferring hard decisions about which kinds of machine-assisted creative works can be copyrighted over nearly 250 years has made it harder to ascertain whether works produced with the help of artificial intelligence can receive legal protection, according to Harvard Law School Professor Rebecca Tushnet...
Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment, spoke as part of a panel discussion, “Copyright in AI Outputs: Who Owns AI-Created Works?,” that was presented by HLS Beyond in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s March decision to deny certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, a case in which lower courts upheld the Copyright Office’s decision not to issue a copyright to an AI-generated image because “copyright law … requires human authorship.” Matt Kristoffersen ’27 moderated the discussion, which included Boston University School of Law Professor Jessica Silbey, Harvard Law Professor Christopher T. Bavitz, and an extensive Q&A session with audience members."
THOMAS MADDREY, PetaPixel; Rare Full Court Rehearing Granted in Copyright Case Against Kat Von D’s Miles Davis Tattoo
"On June 9, Chief Judge for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Mary H. Murguia issued an Order in the case of Jeffery B. Sedlik v. Katherine von Drachenberg, aka Kat Von D, et. al. granting an en banc rehearing by the full court...
In a nutshell, this rare move by the Court tells the litigants that even though a panel of three Ninth Circuit judges have rendered an opinion in the case, the question is unsettled enough that a hearing by the full 11-judge panel is warranted.
This is not a common occurrence: in 2024, for example, the Court received 625 petitions for en banc review, 29 cases were then voted on by the Court to see if they should be heard, and only nine cases succeeded in that vote. In some years, this number increases, but rarely are more than 20 cases a year granted such a special evaluation. The Court reserved this designation for those cases that indicate a clear split with other Circuit Courts around the country, cases that are likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and if the issues presented affect many others similarly situated, among other considerations. This case checks all those boxes."
JOE MULLIN , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Congress Just Rushed Through a Disastrous Copyright Office Overhaul; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
"In a voice vote earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6028, the “Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act.” The legislation is presented as a technical reorganization of some government agencies, but it’s much more than that.
H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office, and not in a good way. The bill removes the Library of Congress’ current supervisory role over the Copyright Office, transfers several powers directly to the Register of Copyrights, and makes the Register a presidential appointee, confirmed by the Senate.
These changes would make an office that’s already hugely influential in copyright and tech policy much more political. EFF first explained why that’s a terrible idea when it came up nearly a decade ago. This bill, like the older one, weakens the few public-interest checks and balances that do exist. We hope the Senate promptly rejects this bill."
Annelise Levy, Bloomberg Law; Anthropic, Nvidia Sway Judge to Split Authors’ AI Copyright Suit
"A group of big tech companies convinced a federal judge to split up authors’ copyright lawsuit accusing them of pirating books to build artificial intelligence models.
The authors’ allegation that
Greg Trial, Bloomberg Government; BGOV Bill Analysis: H.R. 6028, Library, Copyright Appointments
"The librarian of Congress would be appointed by House and Senate leadership rather than the president under
The measure would move the US Copyright Office out from under the supervision of the Library of Congress to clarify its executive branch functions. It also would make the director of the Government Publishing Office a congressionally appointed position.
While the Library of Congress is a part of the legislative branch, the librarian has been a presidential appointee since the position was established in 1802."
Kyle Jahner, Bloomberg Law; House Passes Bill to Move Copyright Office to Executive Branch
"The House passed a bill Monday that would largely divorce the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress, one step closer to granting the president the ability to appoint and fire the register of copyrights.
House lawmakers passed the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act (H.R. 6028; BGOV Bill Analysis) by voice vote, sending the bill to the Senate. It would allow the president rather than the librarian of Congress to choose the register of copyrights and change how appointments are made for multiple legislative agencies."
Pablo Iglesias Maurer, The Guardian ; ‘They picked the wrong artist’: How a Dallas mural cover-up led to a $25m lawsuit against Fifa
"What has ensued has thrust the artist into a battle with the most powerful sporting organization in the world, a local organizing committee, and has sparked a long-needed debate about the ownership and importance of public art.
In time, Wyland learned that his work had been entirely erased to make way for a new mural promoting the upcoming Fifa World Cup. Almost immediately, Wyland’s team filed a cease and desist. Days later, they filed a lawsuit against Fifa seeking $25m in damages.
“This is a David and Goliath thing for sure,” said Wyland. “They are a multi-billion dollar [organization], and I am a single artist with a small foundation, But I tell you, they picked the wrong artist and the wrong artwork. I am not going to stand by and let them get away with this.”...
Wyland’s lawsuit cites the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) of 1990, which affords artists of “recognized stature” protection against the intentional or negligent destruction of their work. The $25m that Wyland is asking for would be far and away the largest award claimed in a VARA lawsuit. The artist says he’ll donate any proceeds from the lawsuit to charity."
Kayla Ganir, Benjamin Greenberg, JD Supra ; Can AI Author Copyrightable Work? The Supreme Court Just Declined to Say Yes
"By denying certiorari in the Thaler Case, the Supreme Court left intact several key principles flowing from the D.C. Circuit’s application of the Copyright Act’s human authorship requirement:
These principles serve as an important reminder that artists and creators should carefully consider the extent to which they rely on AI in their creative processes if they intend to seek copyright protection for their work. The Thaler Case underscores that while AI may offer innovative creative tools, protection under the Copyright Act remains grounded in human creativity, input, and judgment."
MURRAY STASSEN , Music Business Worldwide; A BILL MOVING THROUGH CONGRESS COULD CHANGE WHO CONTROLS THE US COPYRIGHT OFFICE. HERE’S WHY IT MATTERS FOR THE MUSIC BUSINESS.
"The bill arrives in the middle of an ongoing fight over the US Copyright Office and the firing of its director.
In May 2025, the Trump administration fired top copyright official Shira Perlmutter, a day after her office released a report concluding that training AI on copyrighted works qualifies as fair use in some circumstances but not others.
The administration had first removed Carla D. Hayden, the Librarian of Congress, and installed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as acting Librarian, who then moved to replace Perlmutter with Department of Justice official Paul Perkins.
Perlmutter sued the administration, arguing that only the Librarian of Congress, not the President, has the power to appoint or remove the Register of Copyrights.
A federal appeals court reinstated Perlmutter in September 2025, and she remains in the role while the legal battle continues.
That fight turns on the same question Griffith‘s bill addresses: whether the Register of Copyrights is an executive or a legislative officer...
Running alongside the legislation is the unresolved Perlmutter case.
The Supreme Court declined to act on her firing in late 2025, leaving Perlmutter in place while it weighs related disputes over the President’s power to remove officials.
Both the bill and the lawsuit circle the same question – whether the Register answers to the President or to Congress.
Griffith says a Senate-confirmed Register with a fixed term would give the office steadier leadership and clearer oversight.
Critics counter that a presidential appointee would politicize copyright and AI policy, and could disrupt the registration and deposit systems the Library of Congress depends on."
Pesala Bandara, PetaPixel; Who Took This JFK Photo? Museum and Collector Clash in Copyright Case
"The photograph in question shows a smiling President Kennedy and first lady Jacqueline Kennedy in their motorcade on the day of his assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963. In the case, which was first reported by Plagiarism Today, private collector Cade Campbell filed a claim with the Copyright Claims Board (CCB), alleging that the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas was unlawfully displaying this photograph...
In the end, the CCB found in favor of the museum. It concluded that, based on the greater weight of evidence, the photograph Campbell owned was a later copy of the Titus image, not the original. As such, the board dismissed the claim with prejudice."
Steve Vondran , JD Supra; Factors that may support a finding of "willful copyright infringement"
"In copyright litigation, identifying the facts that may support a finding of willful infringement can be critical in any case, whether you are on the plaintiff or defense side. A willfulness finding may significantly increase the defendant's financial exposure, including the potential for enhanced statutory damages damages ($30,000-150,000), attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. Just as important, where the infringement is carried out through a corporation, courts may examine whether company officers, directors, owners, or managers personally participated in, directed, authorized, or financially benefited from the infringing activity. For this reason, copyright plaintiffs should carefully evaluate evidence such as prior notice, cease-and-desist letters, continued use after warning, concealment, removal of copyright management information (17 U.S.C. 1202 claims), repeated infringement, and decision-maker involvement. These facts can help establish not only infringement but also whether the conduct was knowing, reckless, or intentional, which could lead to broader liability against the individuals behind the business. This is what we refer to as "officer and director copyright liability," which allows plaintiffs to name both individuals and their corporations notwithstanding the corporate veil!
Federal courts do not apply a single universal test for "willful infringement" in copyright cases. However, courts repeatedly identify certain facts and circumstances that support a finding that infringement was knowing, intentional, reckless, or undertaken with willful blindness. This blog provides some general concepts to consider in your next infringement matter."
