Blondie and Dagwood are entering the public domain, but Betty Boop still may be trapped in copyright jail; The Los Angeles Times, December 30, 2025

 Michael Hiltzik, The Los Angeles Times; Blondie and Dagwood are entering the public domain, but Betty Boop still may be trapped in copyright jail

"Duke’s Jenkins refers to “the harm of the long term — so many works could have been rediscovered earlier.” Moreover, she says, “so many works don’t make it out of obscurity.” The long consignment to the wilderness thwarts “preservation, access, education, creative reuse, scholarship, etc., when most of the works are out of circulation and not benefiting any rights holders.”

Among other drawbacks, she notes, “films have disintegrated because preservationists can’t digitize them.” Many films from the 1930s are theoretically available to the public domain now, but not really because they’ve been lost forever.

What would be the right length of time? “We could have that same experience after a much shorter term,” Jenkins told me. “Looking back at works from the ‘70s and ‘80s has similar excitement for me.” Economic models, she adds, have placed the optimal term at about 35 years.

It’s proper to note that just because something is scheduled to enter the public domain, that doesn’t mean legal wrangling over its copyright protection is settled. 

With recurring characters, for instance, only the version appearing in a given threshold year enters the public domain 95 years later; subsequent alternations or enhancements retain protection until their term is up. That has led to courthouse disputes over just what changes are significant enough to retain copyright for those changes. 

“Copyrightable aspects of a character’s evolution that appear in later, still-protected works may remain off-limits until those later works themselves expire,” Los Angeles copyright lawyer Aaron Moss said."

Year in Review: The U.S. Copyright Office; Library of Congress Blogs: Copyright Creativity at Work, December 29, 2025

 George Thuronyi , Library of Congress Blogs: Copyright Creativity at Work; Year in Review: The U.S. Copyright Office

"Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office

As the year draws to a close, I am pleased to recognize an impressive slate of accomplishments at the U.S. Copyright Office. Despite some challenges, including a lengthy government shutdown, the Office continued to produce high-quality work and reliable service to the public—from policy analyses to technology updates; efficient registration, recordation and deposit; and education and outreach. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead such a skilled and dedicated staff.

A central policy focus of the year was further work on the Office’s comprehensive artificial intelligence initiative. In January, we published Part 2 of our report, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, addressing the copyrightability of works generated using AI. In May, we released a pre-publication version of Part 3, addressing the ingestion of copyrighted works for generative AI training.

A particularly exciting development has been in the area of IT modernization: the launch of more components of the Enterprise Copyright System (ECS). The Office engaged in a successful limited pilot with members of the public of both the eDeposit upload functionality and our most-used registration form, the Standard Application. The development teams are implementing the feedback received, and work has begun on the first ECS group registration application. We also launched the ECS licensing component, which improves the Office’s internal capabilities in administering section 111 of the Copyright Act.

Another ECS component, the new and improved Copyright Public Records System (CPRS), replaced our legacy system as the official Office record in June. More and more pre-1978 historical public records have been digitized and published, with 19,135 copyright record books now available online, amounting to more than 72 percent of the total collection.

The Office also made strides in administration and public service. Our small claims court, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB), completed its third full year, offering a more accessible option for resolving copyright disputes below a certain monetary value. The Office published a rule expediting the process for obtaining a certification of a final determination and initiated a study of the CCB’s operations to be delivered to Congress in 2026.

Our public information and education programs continued to grow. The Office hosted or participated in 190 events and speaking engagements and assisted the public, in both English and Spanish, with responses to 247,484 inquiries in-person and by phone, email, and other communications. We launched a new Registration Toolkit and a Copyright for Kids activity sheet. In September, the Office hosted the International Copyright Institute, our premier weeklong training event for foreign copyright officials, coproduced with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

This fall, we responded to a Congressional request on issues relating to performance rights organizations (PROs). And earlier in December, we announced a new group registration option for two-dimensional artwork, responding to the needs of visual artists. The Office also has taken forward the periodic review, mandated by the Music Modernization Act, of the mechanical licensing collective (MLC) and digital licensee coordinator (DLC), to be completed in 2026.

On the litigation front, the Office worked with the Department of Justice to develop and articulate positions in copyright-related cases. One major win was an appellate decision affirming the Office’s rejection of an application to register a work claimed to be produced entirely by artificial intelligence. The D.C. Circuit agreed with our view that human authorship is required for copyright protection.

Collaboration with and advising other federal agencies was again a key part of our interagency work in the international arena. This included participating in WIPO meetings on copyright and contributing to the U.S. Trade Representative’s annual Special 301 Report.

Concurrent with all of this activity, the Office’s provision of our regular services continued apace. Despite furloughs during the six-week lapse in appropriations, we issued 415,780 registrations and recorded 12,310 documents containing 5,704,306 works in fiscal year 2025. All the while, we maintained historically low processing times. We also received and transferred 503,389 copyright deposits, worth more than $57.8 million, to Library of Congress collections.

The Copyright Office remains committed to advancing copyright law and policy and supporting stakeholders in the creation and use of works of authorship. The work of the past year demonstrates the value of a resilient institution, grounded in expertise and public service. We look forward to further achievements in 2026."

Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and the Fight for User Rights: 2025 in Review; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), December 25, 2025

TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and the Fight for User Rights: 2025 in Review

"A tidal wave of copyright lawsuits against AI developers threatens beneficial uses of AI, like creative expression, legal research, and scientific advancement. How courts decide these cases will profoundly shape the future of this technology, including its capabilities, its costs, and whether its evolution will be shaped by the democratizing forces of the open market or the whims of an oligopoly. As these cases finished their trials and moved to appeals courts in 2025, EFF intervened to defend fair use, promote competition, and protect everyone’s rights to build and benefit from this technology.

At the same time, rightsholders stepped up their efforts to control fair uses through everything from state AI laws to technical standards that influence how the web functions. In 2025, EFF fought policies that threaten the open web in the California State Legislature, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and beyond."

Disney, Warner Urge Judge Against Tossing AI-Copyright Lawsuit; Bloomberg Law, December 26, 2025

Annelise Levy

, Bloomberg Law ; Disney, Warner Urge Judge Against Tossing AI-Copyright Lawsuit

"The studios’ said they’d engaged specialists in Singapore and China and were informed service could take eight to 24 months."

Betty Boop, Mickey Mouse works enter the public domain in 2026; Axios, December 26, 2025

Josephine Walker, Axios; Betty Boop, Mickey Mouse works enter the public domain in 2026

"The public will be able to copy and reproduce thousands of copyrighted works from 1930 in the new year, including flirtatious flapper Betty Boop, nine additional Mickey Mouse cartoons and novels from Agatha Christie and William Faulkner.

Why it matters: Copyright violations can run up a hefty price tag — but when works enter the public domain, creatives can legally reimagine American classics.

What they're saying: "To tell new stories, we draw from older ones," Duke Law professors Jennifer Jenkins and James Boyle wrote in an annual survey of works entering the public domain.

"One work of art inspires another — that is how the public domain feeds creativity."

The cultural works becoming public domain in 2026, from Betty Boop to Nancy Drew; NPR, December 26, 2025

Rachel Treisman , NPR; The cultural works becoming public domain in 2026, from Betty Boop to Nancy Drew

"A new year means a new parade of classic characters and works entering the public domain.

Under U.S. law, the copyright on thousands of creations from 1930 — including films, books, musical compositions and more — will expire at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, 2026, meaning they will be free to use, share and adapt after nearly a century.

"I think this is my favorite crop of works yet, which is saying a lot," says Jennifer Jenkins, the director of Duke University Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, who has compiled an annual list of public domain entrants for over a decade."

Amazon Prime slammed for streaming ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ with key scene cut out: ‘Sacrilege’'; New York Post, December 25, 2025

Ariel Zilber, New York Post; Amazon Prime slammed for streaming ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ with key scene cut out: ‘Sacrilege’

"The existence of the abridged version is rooted not in a creative choice by Amazon, but in the film’s famously tangled copyright history, according to the University of Connecticut.

In 1974, the distributor failed to renew the movie’s copyright, sending “It’s a Wonderful Life” into the public domain.

For nearly two decades, television stations freely aired the film — especially during the holidays — without paying royalties.

But the legal landscape shifted in the 1990s.

While the film itself had fallen into the public domain, the rights to two underlying elements had been properly maintained: the original short story “The Greatest Gift,” by Philip Van Doren Stern, and the musical score by Dimitri Timokin, a UConn legal blog noted.

Republic Pictures, later acquired by Paramount, used those copyrights to effectively reclaim control over the movie’s distribution, arguing that any exhibition of the film required licensing the copyrighted story and music.

The “Pottersville” sequence is the portion most directly adapted from Stern’s story.

Legal experts say the abridged version appears to be a workaround — by removing that specific sequence, distributors may have believed they could avoid infringing on the short story’s copyright while still offering a version of the film."

Copyright and AI Battle for the Future; New York State Bar Association (NYSBA), December 23, 2025

 Nyasha Shani Foy, Temidayo Akinjisola and James Parker , New York State Bar Association (NYSBA); Copyright and AI Battle for the Future

"This article will explore the balance of progress and protection at play stemming from the use of AI that may shape the future of copyright law."

Not Just AI: Traditional Copyright Decisions of 2025 That Should Be on Your Radar; IP Watchdog, December 22, 2025

 JASON BLOOM & MICHAEL LAMBERT , IP Watchdog; Not Just AI: Traditional Copyright Decisions of 2025 That Should Be on Your Radar

"In a year dominated by artificial intelligence (AI) copyright cases, 2025 also featured several influential cases on traditional copyright issues that will impact copyright owners, internet service providers, website owners, advertisers, social media users, media companies, and many others. Although the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide a copyright case this year, it heard argument on secondary liability and willfulness issues in Cox v. Sony. Lower courts continued to wrestle with applying the fair use factors two years after the Supreme Court issued Warhol v. Goldsmith. The divide over whether the “server test” applies to embedded works deepened—and remains unsettled. And the Ninth Circuit further refined the standard for pleading access to online works. This article highlights some of the most important copyright cases from this year and their practical implications."

Fair Use is a Right. Ignoring It Has Consequences.; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), December 18, 2025

 MITCH STOLTZ , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Fair Use is a Right. Ignoring It Has Consequences.

"Fair use is not just an excuse to copy—it’s a pillar of online speech protection, and disregarding it in order to lash out at a critic should have serious consequences. That’s what we told a federal court in Channel 781 News v. Waltham Community Access Corporation, our case fighting copyright abuse on behalf of citizen journalists."

January 1, 2026 is Public Domain Day: Works from 1930 are open to all, as are sound recordings from 1925!; Center for the Study of the Public Domain, December 2025

Jennifer Jenkins and James Boyle, Center for the Study of the Public Domain; January 1, 2026 is Public Domain Day: Works from 1930 are open to all, as are sound recordings from 1925!

"CC BY 4.0

Please note that this site is only about US law; the copyright terms in other countries are different.[2]

On January 1, 2026, thousands of copyrighted works from 1930 enter the US public domain, along with sound recordings from 1925. They will be free for all to copy, share, and build upon.[3] The literary highlights range from William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying to Agatha Christie’s The Murder at the Vicarage and the first four Nancy Drew novels. From cartoons and comic strips, the characters Betty Boop, Pluto (originally named Rover), and Blondie and Dagwood made their first appearances. Films from the year featured Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, the Marx Brothers, and John Wayne in his first leading role. Among the public domain compositions are I Got Rhythm, Georgia on My Mind, and Dream a Little Dream of Me. We are also celebrating paintings from Piet Mondrian and Paul Klee. Below you can find lists of some of the most notable books, characters, comics, and cartoons, films, songs, sound recordings, and art entering the public domain.[4] After each of them, we have provided an analysis of their significance. At the end of the article, we explain:

Why all of this matters
How do copyright and trademark law apply to characters?
What is the impact of the long copyright term?
What are the basic rules for determining whether something is public domain?
Conclusion"

Government's AI consultation finds just 3% support copyright exception; The Bookseller, December 15, 2025

 MAIA SNOW, The Bookseller; Government's AI consultation finds just 3% support copyright exception

"The initial results of the consultation found that the majority of respondents (88%) backed licences being required in all cases where data was being used for AI training. Just 3% of respondents supported the government’s preferred options, which would allow data mining by AI companies and require rights holders to opt-out."

I called my recipe book Sabzi – vegetables. But the name was trademarked. And my legal ordeal began; The Guardian, December 4, 2025

 Yasmin Khan, The Guardian ; I called my recipe book Sabzi – vegetables. But the name was trademarked. And my legal ordeal began

"Vegetables, in my experience, rarely cause controversy. Yet last month I found myself in the middle of a legal storm over who gets to own the word sabzi – the Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Persian, Dari and Pashto word for cooked veg or fresh greens. It was a story as absurd as it was stressful, a chain of delis threatened me with legal action over the title of a book I had spent years creating. But what began as a personal legal headache soon morphed into something bigger, a story about how power and privilege still dominate conversations about cultural ownership in the UK.

When the email first landed in my inbox, I assumed it must be a wind-up. My editor at Bloomsbury had forwarded a solicitor’s letter addressed to me personally, care of my publishers. As I read it, my stomach dropped. A deli owner from Cornwall accused me of infringing her intellectual property over my cookbook Sabzi: Fresh Vegetarian Recipes for Every Day. Why? Because in 2022, she had trademarked the word sabzi to use for her business and any future products, including a cookbook she hoped to write one day.

My jaw clenched as I pored over pages of legal documentation, written in the punitive and aggressive tone of a firm gearing up for a fight. I was accused of “misrepresentation” (copying the deli’s brand), damaging its business and affecting its future growth, and they demanded detailed commercial reports about my work, including sales revenue, stock numbers and distribution contracts – information so intrusive that it felt like an audit. Buried in the legal jargon was a line that shook me. They reserved the right to seek the “destruction” of all items relating to their infringement claim. Reading the threat of my book being pulped was nothing short of devastating. It was also utterly enraging.

Because sabzi isn’t some cute exotic brand name, it’s part of the daily lexicon of more than a billion people across cultures and borders. In south Asia, it simply means cooked vegetables."

(Podcast) The Briefing: What Is Fair Use and Why Does It Matter? (Featured); JDSupra, December 5, 2025

 Richard Buckley, Jr. and Scott Hervey, JDSupra ; (Podcast) The Briefing: What Is Fair Use and Why Does It Matter? (Featured)

"Creators, beware: just because it’s online doesn’t mean it’s fair game. In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley break down one of the most misunderstood areas of copyright law—fair use.

In this featured episode, they cover:

- What makes a use “transformative”?

- Why credit alone doesn’t protect you

- How recent court rulings (Warhol v. Goldsmith) are changing the game

- Tips to stay on the right side of the law"

Authors Ask to Update Meta AI Copyright Suit With Torrent Claim; Bloomberg Law, December 12, 2025

 

Kyle Jahner

, Bloomberg Law; Authors Ask to Update Meta AI Copyright Suit With Torrent Claim

"Authors in a putative class action copyright suit against Meta Platforms Inc. asked a federal judge for permission to amend their complaint to add a claim over Meta’s use of peer-to-peer file-sharing unveiled in discovery."

The Disney-OpenAI Deal Redefines the AI Copyright War; Wired, December 11, 2025

BRIAN BARRETT, Wired; The Disney-OpenAI Deal Redefines the AI Copyright War

 "“I think that AI companies and copyright holders are beginning to understand and become reconciled to the fact that neither side is going to score an absolute victory,” says Matthew Sag, a professor of law and artificial intelligence at Emory University. While many of these cases are still working their way through the courts, so far it seems like model inputs—the training data that these models learn from—are covered by fair use. But this deal is about outputs—what the model returns based on your prompt—where IP owners like Disney have a much stronger case

Coming to an output agreement resolves a host of messy, potentially unsolvable issues. Even if a company tells an AI model not to produce, say, Elsa at a Wendy’s drive-through, the model might know enough about Elsa to do so anyway—or a user might be able to prompt their way into making Elsa without asking for the character by name. It’s a tension that legal scholars call the “Snoopy problem,” but in this case you might as well call it the Disney problem.

“Faced with this increasingly clear reality, it makes sense for consumer-facing AI companies and entertainment giants like Disney to think about licensing arrangements,” says Sag."

Disney's deal with OpenAI is about controlling the future of copyright; engadget, December 11, 2025

 Igor Bonifacic, engadget; Disney's deal with OpenAI is about controlling the future of copyright

"The agreement brings together two parties with very different public stances on copyright. Before OpenAI released Sora, the company reportedly notified studios and talent agencies they would need to opt out of having their work appear in the new app. The company later backtracked on this stance. Before that, OpenAI admitted, in a regulatory filing, it would be "impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials."

By contrast, Disney takes copyright law very seriously. In fact, you could argue no other company has done more to shape US copyright law than Disney. For example, there's the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which is more derisively known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. The law effectively froze the advancement of the public domain in the United States, with Disney being the greatest beneficiary. It was only last year that the company's copyright for Steamboat Willie expired, 95 years after Walt Disney first created the iconic cartoon."

Disney says Google AI infringes copyright “on a massive scale”; Ars Technica, December 11, 2025

 RYAN WHITWAM , Ars Technica; Disney says Google AI infringes copyright “on a massive scale”

"Disney has sent a cease and desist to Google, alleging the company’s AI tools are infringing Disney’s copyrights “on a massive scale.”

According to the letter, Google is violating the entertainment conglomerate’s intellectual property in multiple ways. The legal notice says Google has copied a “large corpus” of Disney’s works to train its gen AI models, which is believable, as Google’s image and video models will happily produce popular Disney characters—they couldn’t do that without feeding the models lots of Disney data.

The C&D also takes issue with Google for distributing “copies of its protected works” to consumers."

Has Cambridge-based AI music upstart Suno 'gone legit'?; WBUR, December 11, 2025

 

Tiziana Dearing 

Rob Lane

, WBUR; Has Cambridge-based AI music upstart Suno 'gone legit'?

"The Cambridge-based AI music company Suno, which has been besieged by lawsuits from record labels, is now teaming up with behemoth label Warner Music. Under a new partnership, Warner will license music in its catalogue for use by Suno's AI.

Copyright law experts Peter Karol and Bhamati Viswanathan join WBUR's Morning Edition to discuss what the deal between Suno and Warner Music means for the future of intellectual property."

Disney Agrees to Bring Its Characters to OpenAI’s Sora Videos; The New York Times, December 11, 2025

 Brooks Barnes, The New York Times; Disney Agrees to Bring Its Characters to OpenAI’s Sora Videos

"In a watershed moment for Hollywood and generative artificial intelligence, Disney on Thursday announced an agreement to bring its characters to Sora, OpenAI’s short-form video platform. Videos made with Sora will be available to stream on Disney+ as part of the three-year deal...

“The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence marks an important moment for our industry, and through this collaboration with OpenAI we will thoughtfully and responsibly extend the reach of our storytelling,” Robert A. Iger, the chief executive of Disney, said in a statement.

Disney is the first major Hollywood company to cross this particular Rubicon."