I’m Begging You: Never Write With A.I.; The New York Times, August 4, 2026

 BRET STEPHENS, The New York Times; I’m Begging You: Never Write With A.I.

"This column isn’t so much an argument as it is a plea: Don’t use artificial intelligence to help you write. Never let A.I. do your writing for you.

Don’t use it for school papers, work briefs, letters to your in-laws, speeches at your company gathering or emails (however perfunctory) to your colleagues or friends. Don’t let it organize your notes. Don’t let it suggest an opening sentence, a segue or a closing paragraph. Don’t ask it to write a first draft and pretend that editing that draft somehow makes it your own. It doesn’t.

Do none of these things not because they are unethical. Writing with A.I. is unethical when it’s a deception: when you pass off words, ideas and information as your own when they aren’t. An acknowledgment can largely address the problem. Do none of these things, either, because you might be able to learn to write better than an A.I. can. Pretty soon, if not already, you won’t, just as you can’t outrun a car or outplay a chess app.

The problem with writing with A.I. is that it’s mentally enfeebling — an escalator toward a result when you really need to make a daily habit of taking the stairs. As it becomes ubiquitous, it undermines not only our individual ability to write but also a society’s collective ability to reason, a culture’s inner capacity to create and everyone’s reason to care. We’re already reckoning with the well-documented decline of reading; A.I. is accelerating the decline of writing, ushering us further into what The Atlantic’s Rose Horowitch calls our “postliterate age...

A recent examination using A.I.-detection technology of 100 doctoral dissertations found that 56 percent of them contained “more than negligible” A.I.-generated writing and 19 percent had “more than 50 percent A.I.-generated text.” Anecdotal stories from college professors have a finger-in-the-dike feeling with regard to their efforts to hold back the flood of A.I.-generated student papers. It’s easy to treat the problem as one of mere cheating. But cheating doesn’t capture the real scope of the A.I. threat, which isn’t merely to academic integrity or personal betterment but also to democratic self-governance."

Congress wants artists to own their aesthetic; Politico, June 17, 2026

 AARON MAK, Politico; Congress wants artists to own their aesthetic

"Artificial intelligence has made it incredibly easy to replicate the work of artists, with users generating images reminiscent of Dungeons & Dragons or Studio Ghibli characters.

Congress is now looking to protect people from having their artwork aped by AI. A bipartisan group of lawmakers recently introduced the CREATOR Act, which would grant visual artists control over how AI mimics their creative styles.

Existing intellectual property law generally doesn’t provide people with a right to their artistic styles. The CREATOR Act would significantly expand the scope of IP, and raises a number of unsettled questions about what exactly makes an artists’ work distinctive in a legal sense.

“There’s a lot of ambiguity about what we mean when we say ‘style,’” Cornell tech law professor James Grimmelmann told DFD. “Some elements of artistic style are things that are common in a genre … on the other hand, sometimes when we talk about artistic style, we really are referring to characteristics of somebody’s creations that are recognizably by them.”

The CREATOR Act would allow visual artists to sue those who purposefully use AI to profit from their creative styles without permission, as well as AI platforms that knowingly allow such conduct to occur."

Celebrating World IP Day 2026: Sports, Innovation and Intellectual Property; JDSupra, April 24, 2026

 Baker,Hostetler, Jeffrey Lyons, JDSupra; Celebrating World IP Day 2026: Sports, Innovation and Intellectual Property

"Another year, another opportunity to celebrate intellectual property (IP) on World Intellectual Property Day! This year, the World Intellectual Property Organization turns the global spotlight on “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate,” highlighting how IP rights support innovation, creativity and investment in sports...

As sports continue to intersect with artificial intelligence, advanced data analytics, immersive media and global brands, IP considerations will only grow in importance. World IP Day is a reminder that innovation does not happen in isolation; it depends on legal structures that reward creativity while enabling responsible growth.

Happy World IP Day 2026!"

CC’s position on key copyright issues; Creative Commons, April 22, 2026

  Creative Commons ; CC’s position on key copyright issues

"Creative Commons was founded in response to the radical expansion of copyright in the 20th century."

Anthropic’s Leaked Code Tests Copyright Challenges in A.I. Era; The New York Times, April 22, 2026

  Meaghan Tobin, The New York Times; Anthropic’s Leaked Code Tests Copyright Challenges in A.I. Era

Artificial intelligence tools are making it faster than ever to reproduce creative work. Does copyright even matter anymore?

"Sigrid Jin was waiting to board a plane when he saw stunning news that artificial intelligence start-up Anthropic had accidentally leaked the source code for Claude Code, its popular A.I. agent. Mr. Jin, 25, an undergraduate student, scrambled to post a copy online. His worried girlfriend quickly texted him: Was he violating copyright law?

Mr. Jin turned to a team of A.I. assistants for a solution. He directed them to rewrite the leaked code in another programming language, then shared that version online. Within hours, more than 100,000 people had liked or linked to it.

Anthropic, one of the leading A.I. companies alongside OpenAI, has said the leak had been caused by human error and, citing copyright violations, demanded that GitHub, an online library of computer code, remove posts sharing the code. Thousands of posts were taken down. But Mr. Jin’s version remains online. He said Anthropic had not asked him to take it down.

It is unclear whether Anthropic, which did not respond to questions from The New York Times, is drawing a distinction with the rewritten code. Mr. Jin said he believed rewriting the code transformed it into a new work, one that Anthropic could not claim ownership over.

He said he was driven less by money or fame than by a desire to make a broader philosophical point. What is the value of copyrighted intellectual property in an era when A.I. can easily replicate not just computer code but art, music and literature in minutes?

“I just wanted to raise some ethical questions in the A.I. agent era,” he said. “Any creative work can be reproduced in a second.”"

Who owns ideas in the AI age?; Fortune, April 8, 2026

 Francesca Cassidy , Fortune; Who owns ideas in the AI age?; David Shelley, CEO of Hachette’s U.K. and U.S. operations, on taking on Big Tech, defending copyright, and why the future of human creativity is at stake.

"Can you ever really own an idea?"

AI is dressing up greed as progress on creative rights; Financial Times, March 14, 2026

 CAMILLA CAVENDISH, Financial Times; AI is dressing up greed as progress on creative rights

"At this week’s London Book Fair, a lot of people were walking around with one particular title wedged under their arms. Called Don’t Steal This Book, its pages are empty apart from the names of thousands of authors, including Kazuo Ishiguro and Richard Osman. It’s a chilling protest against the rampant theft of creative work by tech firms, which could leave future artists unable to earn a living."

Perspective: No copyright for AI-generated content; Northern Public Radio, March 13, 2026

 David Gunkel, Northern Public Radio; Perspective: No copyright for AI-generated content

"What the courts actually decided is that neither the AI system nor the human who uses it counts as the author of the resulting work. Simply prompting ChatGPT or Claude to produce something isn’t considered the kind of creative activity that copyright law recognizes as authorship. And that creates an unexpected result. If neither the AI nor the human user is the author, then the work has no author at all. In effect, AI-generated images, music, and text become “orphan works”—creations that belong to no one. And that means that anyone can use them."

Celebrating the Public Domain; ABA, January 29, 2026

Jennifer Jenkins and James Boyle, ABA ; Celebrating the Public Domain

"How does the public domain feed creativity? Here are just three examples. In 2025, you may have enjoyed Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, derived from Mary Shelley’s novel, or Wicked: For Good, derived from L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. From the literary realm in 2024, Percival Everett’s novel James reimagined Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of Jim, Huckleberry’s friend who is an escaped slave. The novel won the 2024 National Book Award and Kirkus Prize and was a finalist for the Booker Prize. As summed up by a New York Times review: “‘Huck Finn’ Is a Masterpiece. This Retelling Just Might Be, Too.”  

Mark Twain famously wanted copyright to last forever. If he had his wish, would his heirs have sued Everett? Thankfully, we did not have to find out, and Everett could publish James without such litigation. When author Alice Randall sought to revisit Gone with the Wind from the slaves’ perspective in The Wind Done Gone (2001), she was sued for copyright infringement. Gone with the Wind is copyrighted until 2032, and Randall only won the right to publish her work after a stressful and expensive lawsuit.  

The newly public domain works from 1930 also illustrate how the public domain nurtures creativity. One of the best exemplars is Disney itself, whose beloved works, from Snow White and Cinderella to The Jungle Book and Sleeping Beauty, have consistently built upon the public domain. In 2026, copyright expired over nine early Mickey Mouse films. One of the things that made them so popular was their ingenious reuse of music. At the time, synchronizing moving images with sound was still new, and Walt Disney (correctly) predicted that sound films were the future. Steamboat Willie had pioneered a technique that would even become known as “mickey mousing”—synchronizing music with what was occurring on screen."

Celebrating 250 years of discovery, creativity, and enterprise; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), March 2026

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), March 2026; Celebrating 250 years of discovery, creativity, and enterprise 

"In 1776, our nation’s founders declared independence based on three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Over the past 250 years, innovators from coast to coast have helped turn those ideals into reality. Their ingenuity made our world safer, advanced our technological progress, and created prosperity for both the country and their families.  

As America’s Innovation Agency, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) protects the inventions and brands that drive our economy forward. Join us as we explore the foundations of the intellectual property system in America, the history of patents and trademarks, and how innovation transforms our daily lives."

Essential Knowledge for Journalists Reporting on AI, Creativity and Copyright; Webinar, National Press Foundation: Thursday, February 19, 2026 12 PM - 1 PM EST

 Webinar, National Press Foundation: Essential Knowledge for Journalists Reporting on AI, Creativity and Copyright 

"Generative AI is one of the biggest technological and cultural stories of our time – and one of the hardest to explain. As AI companies train models on news articles, books, images and music, reporters face tough questions about permission, transparency and fair use. Should AI companies pay when creative works are used to train their AI models? Where’s the line between innovation and theft?

The National Press Foundation will host a webinar to help journalists make sense of the evolving AI licensing landscape and report on it with clarity and confidence. We’ll unpack what “AI licensing” really means, how early one-off deals are turning into structured revenue-sharing systems, and why recent agreements in media and entertainment could shift the conversation from conflict to cooperation.

Join NPF and a panel of experts for a free online briefing from 12-1 p.m. ET, Feb. 19, 2026. The practical, forward-looking discussion examines how trust, creativity, and innovation can coexist as this new era unfolds and will equip journalists with plain-language explanations, real-world examples, and story angles that help readers understand why AI licensing matters to culture, innovation and the creative ecosystem they rely on every day."

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."

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."

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."

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."

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."

Minister indicates sympathy for artists in debate over AI and copyright; The Guardian, November 23, 2025

Robert Booth, The Guardian; Minister indicates sympathy for artists in debate over AI and copyright

 "The technology secretary, Liz Kendall, has indicated she is sympathetic to artists’ demands not to have their copyrighted works scraped by AI companies without payment and said she wanted to “reset” the debate.

In remarks that suggest a change in approach from her predecessor, Peter Kyle, who had hoped to require artists to actively opt out of having their work ingested by generative AI systems, she said “people rightly want to get paid for the work that they do” and “we have to find a way that both sectors can grow and thrive in future”.

The government has been consulting on a new intellectual property framework for AI which, in the case of the most common large language models (LLMs), requires vast amounts of training data to work effectively.

The issue has sparked impassioned protests from some of Britain’s most famous artists. This month Paul McCartney released a silent two-minute 45 second track of an empty studio on an album protesting against copyright grabs by AI firms as part of a campaign also backed by Kate Bush, Sam Fender, the Pet Shop Boys and Hans Zimmer."

Tech should help us be creative. AI rips our creativity away; The Guardian, November 21, 2025

Dave Schilling, The Guardian ; Tech should help us be creative. AI rips our creativity away

"Advocates for AI art always throw the word “democratization” around, claiming that these machine tools remove the barriers for entry to creativity. Those barriers were actually pretty valuable, because they prevented people from having to suffer through things that are objectively bad. But again, that’s the old way of thinking. The concept of “bad” or “good” hardly exists any more. In its place, we have a goopy stew of garbage with a few nuggets of actual sustenance periodically bubbling up to the surface...

Technology used to be seen as an instrument for our creativity. A pencil made it easier to record our thoughts. A typewriter and a personal computer did the same, increasing our ability to say what we felt or wanted. Now, technology is actively interrupting our dreams. Artificial intelligence is not a tool for creativity, it’s a wet nurse who burps little babies and feeds them mashed peas every few hours. If I don’t have to spend time learning how to write or make music, then what do I even do with my creative life? I suppose I could spend more time engaging with content. I could devote my remaining days on this Earth to listening to all 100m songs on Spotify. Doesn’t that sound completely dreadful?"

Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works; IP Watchdog, November 3, 2025

 ROSE ESFANDIARI , IP Watchdog; Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works

"On Friday, October 31, Professors Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, Lawrence Lessig and a number of other professors and researchers filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, urging the Court to grant certiorari and recognize copyright protection for works generated by artificial intelligence (AI).

The brief argued that “excluding AI-generated works from copyright protection threatens the foundations of American creativity, innovation, and economic growth,” warning that the lower court’s interpretation, which requires human authorship, disregards the “spirit of the Copyright Act.”"

AI can help authors beat writer’s block, says Bloomsbury chief; The Guardian, October 27, 2025

Lauren Almeida, The Guardian; AI can help authors beat writer’s block, says Bloomsbury chief

[Kip Currier: These are interesting and unexpected comments by Nigel Newton, Bloomsbury publishing's founder and CEO. 

Bloomsbury is the publisher of my impending book Ethics, Information, and Technology. In the interest of transparency, I'll note that I researched and wrote my book the "oldfangled way" and didn't use AI for any aspects of my book, including brainstorming. Last year during a check-in meeting with my editor and a conversation about the book's AI chapter, I just happened to learn that Bloomsbury has had a policy on authors not using AI tools.

So it's noteworthy to see this publisher's shift on authors' use of AI tools.]

[Excerpt]

"Authors will come to rely on artificial intelligence to help them beat writer’s block, the boss of the book publisher Bloomsbury has said.

Nigel Newton, the founder and chief executive of the publisher behind the Harry Potter series, said the technology could support almost all creative arts, although it would not fully replace prominent writers.

“I think AI will probably help creativity, because it will enable the 8 billion people on the planet to get started on some creative area where they might have hesitated to take the first step,” he told the PA news agency...

Last week the publisher, which is headquartered in London and employs about 1,000 people, experienced a share rise of as much as 10% in a single day after it reported a 20% jump in revenue in its academic and professional division in the first half of its financial year, largely thanks to an AI licensing agreement.

However, revenues in its consumer division fell by about 20%, largely due to the absence of a new title from Maas."