As the Copyright Act turns 50, the Copyright Office looks back at how the law has evolved; Federal News Network, September 23, 2026

 Terry Gerton, Federal News Network; As the Copyright Act turns 50, the Copyright Office looks back at how the law has evolved

"Terry Gerton So Miriam, 50 years is a big birthday for anybody, but always for a law. What are the big things that people should know about the copyright law itself?

Miriam Lord Well, and a little bit of background about how it came to be, with instrumental support from the Copyright Office, Congress passed the Act to modernize copyright law for a rapidly changing world. It was signed into law on October 19th, 1976, so we’re celebrating a little early. The principal provisions took effect in 1978. The Office implemented the act, administers the act which includes the registration and recordation systems, and worked with Congress on amendments over time. When it was passed, the act broke new ground by making the copyright system more accessible to creators and users of creative works. And it continues to provide a framework that promotes the office’s constitutional mission."

D.C. Judge Pauses Perlmutter Suit as Copyright Office Bill Awaits Senate Action; IP Watchdog, September 23, 2026

ROSE ESFANDIARI, IP Watchdog; D.C. Judge Pauses Perlmutter Suit as Copyright Office Bill Awaits Senate Action

"The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a minute order on September 18, in Perlmutter v. Blanche, staying the lawsuit brought by Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter until December 18, 2026. Judge Timothy J. Kelly pointed to the House of Representatives’ June passage of the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act, H.R. 6028, which would designate the Register of Copyrights as an officer “appointed by the President” with the advice and consent of the Senate."

Scoop: DOJ's copyright filing took key agencies by surprise; Axios, September 19, 2026

 Sara Fischer, Kerry Flynn, Axios; Scoop: DOJ's copyright filing took key agencies by surprise

"The Department of Justice's statement of interest supporting OpenAI and Microsoft in the New York Times' copyright infringement lawsuit surprised critical agencies like the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Copyright Office, sources told Axios.

Why it matters: Statements of interest allow the government to declare an official position on a legal matter in private lawsuits. While not binding, they can hold significant weight and help persuade cases.

Zoom in: The Times' lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft argues AI firms illegally stole their copyrighted works to train their large language models, and that AI-generated outputs unlawfully produced market substitutions.

• The DOJ's SOI argues copyrighted works to train models should be considered fair use because that practice is new and transformative, but also says outputs aren't necessarily covered by that same legal argument.
• 
  
• Unlike many SOIs, no career antitrust attorneys signed the filing alongside senior DOJ officials.
• 
  

Between the lines: Publishers have criticized the claims in the SOI, including the idea that enforcing copyright laws is too cumbersome and would threaten America's AI dominance over foreign rivals."

The AI Copyright Cases Are Starting to Tell Us Something; Legalytics, September 14, 2026

 ADAM FELDMAN, Legalytics; The AI Copyright Cases Are Starting to Tell Us Something

"The emerging question is therefore no longer simply whether AI companies can train on copyrighted material. A potentially more useful set of questions is coming into view: What exactly did the defendant copy? How did it obtain the material? What copies did it retain? What can the resulting system reproduce or retrieve? Does the AI product compete with the copyright owner’s market? And what evidence exists that the challenged conduct has actually produced market harm?

The answers do not yet produce a reliable formula for predicting who will win though. Most of the litigation remains unresolved, and motions to dismiss, preliminary injunctions, summary judgments, and settlements answer different legal questions. But the accumulated cases now provide enough variation to identify where the pressure points are developing. And those key points suggest that the next phase of AI copyright litigation may look considerably less like one giant test of AI training than the first wave of cases made it appear.

Two Courts, but an Increasingly Diverse Set of Cases

The litigation is remarkably concentrated geographically. Of the 105 captured U.S. infringement actions, 49 were filed in the Northern District of California and 32 in the Southern District of New York. Together those districts account for 77% of the filings in the dataset.

Consolidation does not explain away the pattern. When related proceedings are collapsed into litigation families, roughly the same share—76%—remains centered in those two courts."

Microsoft and OpenAI Workers Worry About ‘Largest Theft of Labor’ in History; The New York Times, September 17, 2026

 Karen Weise and Mike Isaac , The New York Times; Microsoft and OpenAI Workers Worry About ‘Largest Theft of Labor’ in History

Newly unsealed court documents showed concern within Microsoft and OpenAI over the use of millions of news articles to develop A.I. systems.

"Newly unsealed court documents showed considerable concern within Microsoft and its close partner OpenAI over the use of millions of news articles to develop artificial intelligence systems.

As OpenAI was forging ahead with its work, Microsoft employees debated whether what OpenAI was doing represented the “largest theft of labor in human history” and could create a “doom loop” that could ultimately threaten the quality of the large language models they were building...

Snippets of those discussions were made public on Thursday as part of a closely watched lawsuit The New York Times filed against OpenAI and Microsoft in late 2023. Eleven other publishers have joined the suit. Judge Sidney H. Stein of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering motions for a summary judgment. Documents related to the case are slowly being unsealed as the judge considers those motions.

The publishers argue that the tech companies violated copyright law by scraping millions of their stories off the internet and other databases, and using the text, without approval or pay, to train advanced A.I. systems.

Microsoft and OpenAI contend their work was covered under legal protections for “fair use” of copyrighted material. They say the articles were sufficiently transformed into entirely new work by A.I., and were not substitutes that harm the value of the original work."

Can anyone really own the beat behind reggaeton; Marketplace, September 16, 2026

 Kimberly Adams and Alex Schroeder, Marketplace; Can anyone really own the beat behind reggaeton

"A copyright lawsuit in the music industry that has targeted Bad Bunny, Karol G, Daddy Yankee, and hundreds of other artists hit a wall in early September.

A federal judge in California threw out one of the case’s central claims — that the syncopated rhythm at the heart of reggaeton music is protected by copyright.

You might know this beat as “dembow.” But even if you don’t — you’ve probably heard it.

For more on the details of the case, “Marketplace Morning Report” host Kimberly Adams spoke with Jennifer Jenkins, a professor at the Duke University School of Law and author of the book "Music Copyright, Creativity, and Culture."

An A.I. Giant Made an Enemy of Record Labels. Can It Play Nice?; The New York Times, September 9, 2026

Ben Sisario , The New York Times; An A.I. Giant Made an Enemy of Record Labels. Can It Play Nice?

"To Suno, its simple interface is a tool and a toy to inspire creativity in novices and professionals alike. More than 100 million people have created songs with the service, Suno says, and two million pay for an upgraded plan that includes commercial rights to the music they make with it...

But to the major record companies that are pursuing it in litigation, Suno is little more than a pirate, violating copyright law on an industrial scale. And as A.I. moves rapidly into the musical mainstream, a growing number of artists have expressed fears that their work will be drowned out by a flood of generic slop enabled by services like it."

Trump White House Takes Down ‘Tetris’ For Xenophobes Game Over Copyright Threat; Gizmodo, September 8, 2026

 AJ DELLINGER, Gizmodo ; Trump White House Takes Down ‘Tetris’ For Xenophobes Game Over Copyright Threat

"Last week, the Trump White House launched an arcade on the White House website with, among other games, a racist version of Tetris meant to invoke the Trump slogan “Build The Wall.” On Tuesday, after receiving a not-so-veiled threat from The Tetris Company over possible copyright infringement, the game was removed from the White House Arcade page, which does continue to be a real thing somehow."

Court Filings in A.I. Suit Invoke Copyright Law, Culture and Sports; The New York Times, September 4, 2026

 Mike Isaac and Karen Weise , The New York Times; Court Filings in A.I. Suit Invoke Copyright Law, Culture and Sports

Filings made Friday in The New York Times’s closely watched lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft included a range of copyright law and cultural references.

"Court filings made Friday in a closely watched copyright trial pitting The New York Times against OpenAI and Microsoft invoked a wide range of material, including relevant copyright law, arts and sports.

The suit, filed in 2023 by The Times and joined by a group of other news outlets, claims that OpenAI, a leading artificial intelligence start-up, and its partner Microsoft infringed on the publishers’ copyrighted material by using millions of their articles to train A.I. technologies. A.I. companies now compete with The Times as a source of information, the news outlet argued in its suit.

The briefs, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, largely boiled down to two questions: whether the publishers’ news articles were sufficiently “transformed” into an entirely new work by A.I., and whether A.I. produced content that “substituted” for news articles and harmed their value.

Friday was the last day the companies could file motions for a summary judgment that would head off a trial. Judge Sidney H. Stein is expected to make a ruling in the coming weeks."

Tetris Company Distances Itself From Trump White House’s ‘Build the Wall’ Game, Says ‘We Take Copyright Very Seriously’; Variety, September 4, 2026

 Todd Spangler, Variety ; Tetris Company Distances Itself From Trump White House’s ‘Build the Wall’ Game, Says ‘We Take Copyright Very Seriously’

"The Tetris Company wants to be clear that it was not involved in the creation of the White House‘s “Build the Wall” game — an obvious copy of the famous block-dropping title — in which players must prevent zombie-like foreigners from crossing the “southern border” into the United States. The game company added, “We take copyright infringement very seriously.”

On Thursday, the Trump White House launched the whitehouse.gov/arcade website with six games. One of those is called “Build the Wall,” which tells players to “Protect the border from the coming horde.”"

Justice Dept. Sides With OpenAI in New York Times Copyright Suit; The New York Times, September 2, 2026

Karen Weise and Mike Isaac, The New York Times; Justice Dept. Sides With OpenAI in New York Times Copyright Suit

"The Justice Department told a Manhattan federal court that it was in the national interest for the judge to find that OpenAI did not violate copyright law when it used articles by The New York Times and other publishers to develop artificial intelligence systems.

The filing late Tuesday was the first time the Justice Department weighed in on the use of copyrighted material by A.I. companies, which has led to several lawsuits, including one brought by The Times.

The Justice Department argued that developing A.I. was critical to national security, and that training A.I. systems sufficiently transformed the written works to new material allowed under copyright law. It said the benefits of A.I. “far outweigh any competitive harm.”

The government’s intervention is an escalation in the landmark litigation that could determine whether OpenAI violated the law when it was developing its A.I. systems and had harmed the news industry and other content creators...

The Times’s lawsuit is one of many amid a wave of legal action against A.I. companies over copyright claims."

If You Prompt a Movie or Song Into Existence With AI, You Shouldn’t Be Able to Profit From It; The Hollywood Reporter, August 31, 2026

 David Barber, The Hollywood Reporter; If You Prompt a Movie or Song Into Existence With AI, You Shouldn’t Be Able to Profit From It

"Preserving the value of human creativity is not as difficult as it would seem. I propose that the following two provisions be the framework of legislation for the protection of artists:

1. Legislation prohibiting prompt-driven outputs or assets of Generative AI models, and whole works that contain prompt-driven outputs or assets of Generative AI models as any part of said whole, from being copyrighted.

2. Legislation stating that all prompt-driven Generative AI outputs, assets, and their derivatives be clearly labeled as such: Visibly – pictures, images, and videos; Audibly – songs, scores, sound effects/design;  Metadata – trackable for ALL generative AI outputs.

The goal of a law, or laws, built upon these foundational principles, is to disallow the:

• prompting of a song into existence and profiting from it
• prompting of a film or video into existence and profiting from it
• killing of creative departments and using prompt-driven outputs to replace their artistry
• existence of unidentifiable deepfakes

Under such regulations, individual prompted outputs would be ineligible for copyright protection, as would whole works that contain them. Examples include films that use a prompt-generated score, sound effects, visual effects, or VoiceOver, and songs that use prompt-generated horn sections, backup vocals, or other core elements that contribute to the song’s final presentation. Beyond the ethical and moral reasons for these provisions, there is also a legal basis for them.

The language must also prevent corporations from hiding any prompt-driven Generative AI usage under Trade Secret Law."

Copying? Definitely. Infringement? Maybe.; copyright lately, August 24, 2026

 Aaron Moss , copyrightlately; Copying? Definitely. Infringement? Maybe.

"Last week, Thomas filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Peyton, Sotheby’s, and David Zwirner Gallery, which represents Peyton and displays the painting on its website. He says Peyton copied virtually every significant element of his photograph: the composition, the brothers’ poses and expressions, the tilt of each head, the hair, the hands, the lighting, even the placement of Liam’s ring near Noel’s collar—and changed only the cropping, the colors, and the medium.

The complaint calls the painting an unauthorized derivative work, and adds claims against Zwirner and Sotheby’s for reproducing, displaying and distributing it."

EFF to Courts: Don’t Rewrite Copyright Over AI Hype; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), August 31, 2026

 TORI NOBLE AND CORYNNE MCSHERRY, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); EFF to Courts: Don’t Rewrite Copyright Over AI Hype

"It is not the place of courts to say these people are not artists or that AI cannot augment human creativity in a positive way."

Sony, Warner sue Anthropic, alleging "blatant theft" of intellectual property; Axios, August 29, 2026

Ben Berkowitz , Axios; Sony, Warner sue Anthropic, alleging "blatant theft" of intellectual property

"Some of the world's largest music publishers filed a blockbuster lawsuit against Anthropic late Friday night, alleging "one of the largest and most blatant ongoing thefts of intellectual property in history."

Why it matters: The suit is the opening salvo in what is now likely to be a yearslong fight over music, AI, and how intellectual property is protected in a new era of technology.

Driving the news: Units of Sony Music and Warner Music filed the suit in federal court in northern California late Friday night, naming Anthropic, CEO Dario Amodei and co-founder Benjamin Mann as defendants. 

The big picture: The Sony/Warner lawsuit is notable because it's broad.

It alleges Anthropic unlawfully trained its models off "tens of thousands" of music publishers' copyrighted compositions, whereas other lawsuits have focused on a narrower set of works.

BMG's lawsuit against Anthropic, for example, claims infringement against 493 compositions."

The White House posted a video of Tim and Moby in MAGA hats. Their creators responded with a copyright lesson.; Business Insider, August 28, 2026

 Truman Dickerson, Business Insider; The White House posted a video of Tim and Moby in MAGA hats. Their creators responded with a copyright lesson.

"Tim and Moby, the human-and-robot cartoon duo, are known for explaining scientific concepts and historical events to kids in classrooms across America.

In a video posted by the White House this week, though, the pair were instead wearing MAGA hats and explaining why the Department of Education has "utterly failed our students."

Tim and Moby's creators responded with a lesson on the nuances of copyright law."

From Napster to Sampling to AI: Copyright Law’s Role as the Sheriff to Emerging Technology; JD Supra, August 25, 2026

 Richard Busch , JD Supra; From Napster to Sampling to AI: Copyright Law’s Role as the Sheriff to Emerging Technology

"Copyright law rarely meets new technology at the start. More often, it arrives after technology, and those behind it seeking to push (or ignore) the law for monetary gain have already changed markets, habits, and expectations. In music, that pattern has repeated across many major technological shifts. This article focuses on several: digital sampling, which made fragments of existing recordings newly usable in the studio; digital downloads, which changed the economics of distribution; interactive streaming, which made all music available for license on demand; platform music libraries, which embedded music into social media tools; and artificial intelligence, where those building literally trillion dollar businesses have trained on copyrighted works, and used others’ voice and likeness. In each of these instances, creators and rights holders have had to ask courts, Congress, or regulators to apply existing legal frameworks to commercial realities.

My work in music copyright litigation has often involved a recurring collision between music, technology, and copyright law."

The Original Sin of Anthropic’s Claude; The New York Times, August 24, 2026

 Charles Graeber, The New York Times; The Original Sin of Anthropic’s Claude

"One day, hopefully copyright protections will be extended to prevent the unlicensed training of A.I.s.

Until then, we live in a legal gray area, in which giant cash-rich corporations gorge freely on the rights of individual creators. The big ones will continue to eat the little ones unless the little ones can band together.

It’s up to us to demand legislation extending copyright protections in the 21st century. Many members of Congress appear willing; property protections have appeal for both sides of the aisle.

Affirming those copyright protections to include A.I. might even force A.I. companies to hire human writers to create original works for their L.L.M.s to train on. Or perhaps they’ll start spending their treasure like modern Medicis, funding the quality work A.I.s need to stay sharp. At the very least, they might invest in publishing houses and writing programs, fending off model collapse while ushering in a Silicon Era of artistic enlightenment.

I worry for this generation of artists coming of age in yet another technological adolescence, on the brink of so many cultural and economic disruptions.

But I do not worry for the future of art itself. We will always need human mediators to translate the human experience and make the flesh word."

Dolly Parton Refused a Rock Legend in 1974: ‘I Had to Keep That Copyright in My Pocket’; Parade, August 25, 2026

 Melina Gray, Parade; Dolly Parton Refused a Rock Legend in 1974: ‘I Had to Keep That Copyright in My Pocket’

"Elvis Presley was going to record “I Will Always Love You,” and Dolly Parton had already said yes. Then the phone rang the night before, and it was Colonel Tom Parker, Presley’s manager, with a condition nobody had mentioned. Elvis did not record anything unless Parker’s side took half the publishing.

Parton, who died Tuesday at 80, had written the song in 1973 as a goodbye to her longtime duet partner Porter Wagoner, on the same day she wrote “Jolene.” It was one of roughly 3,000 songs she wrote, and a No. 1 country hit under her own name. Handing over half of it meant handing over what she planned to leave her family. She turned Presley down in 1974 and, by her own account, cried all night. “I had to keep that copyright in my pocket,” she later said."

Is it legal to train AI models on copyrighted books? It’s complicated; TechCrunch, August 23, 2026

 Amanda Silberling, TechCrunch ; Is it legal to train AI models on copyrighted books? It’s complicated

"You probably know by now that the AI models powering ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and other chatbots are trained on seemingly infinite databases of published works, containing hundreds of millions of books, online articles, academic papers, and basically anything you can find on the internet. Most published authors have, without their knowledge or consent, contributed to the development of the same AI tools that threaten to undermine their livelihoods. That seems illegal, right? 

The reality isn’t that simple. 

“I think one of the issues with this entire area of law and this entire area of technology is there’s a lot going on,” Cathy Gellis, an attorney with expertise in intellectual property, copyright, and technology, told TechCrunch. “It’s very complex and there are a lot of raw feelings about what is happening, both for and against.”"