Scott Turow's latest real-life legal thriller: Suing Meta for copyright infringement; NPR, May 5, 2026

 Chloe Veltman, NPR ; Scott Turow's latest real-life legal thriller: Suing Meta for copyright infringement

""All Americans should understand that the bold future promised by A.I., has been, to paraphrase the investigative writer Alex Reisner, created with stolen words," said Turow in a statement to NPR. "It is all the more shameful that these violations of the law were undertaken by one of the richest corporations in the world."

According to the complaint, Meta "briefly considered licensing deals with major publishers" but changed its strategy in April 2023. The question of whether to license or pirate moving forward was "escalated" to Zuckerberg, after which, the complaint alleges, Meta's business development team received verbal instructions to stop licensing efforts. "If we license once [sic] single book, we won't be able to lean into the fair use strategy," a Meta employee is quoted as saying in the complaint.

"It's the most flagrant copyright breach in history," said Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger in a statement to NPR. "And these voracious tech companies need to be held accountable.""

Publishers sue Meta, claiming it violated copyrights in training AI with their books; The Washington Post, May 5, 2026

 Maegan Vazquez, The Washington Post; Publishers sue Meta, claiming it violated copyrights in training AI with their books

"The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is the latest in a string of lawsuits brought by publishers, authors, artists, photographers and news outlets aimed at forcing tech companies to compensate them for using their works to train their AI models. The plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that the AI model’s ability to quickly produce knockoffs and summaries of copyrighted books threatens the livelihoods of publishers and authors.

A Meta spokesperson said in a statement that the company would “fight this lawsuit aggressively.”

“AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use,” the spokesperson said.

The publishers’ complaint states Meta distributed millions of copyrighted works without authorization and without compensating authors or publishers, claiming that Zuckerberg “personally authorized and actively encouraged the infringement.” They also claim that Meta removed copyright notices and copyright management information from the works used to train the AI model, known as Llama."

Even More Authors, Publishers Sue Meta Over Copyright in AI Training: What's Different Now; CNET, May 5, 2026

 Katelyn Chedraoui , CNET; Even More Authors, Publishers Sue Meta Over Copyright in AI Training: What's Different Now

Meta won a previous AI lawsuit brought by authors. Publishers are taking a different route this time.

"New lawsuit, same questions

Copyright is one of the most contentious legal issues around AI. Tech companies like Meta need high-quality, human-created data to build and refine their AI models. Nearly all of this material is protected by copyright. That means tech companies have to enter into licensing agreements or defend their use of the content as fair use under a provision of copyright law.

Meta and Anthropic have both won previous cases in lawsuits brought by authors, successfully defending their fair use. Anthropic agreed to settle some piracy claims with authors for $1.5 billion, or about $3,000 per pirated work. Both judges warned in their decisions that this won't be the result in every lawsuit...

One of the biggest considerations in these cases is whether tech companies' use of copyrighted books will make it harder for human authors to sell their work or otherwise affect the marketplace."

Intellectual Property and Brainpower Versus AI in Academic Publish; Academe Magazine, AAUP, Spring 2026

 Kelly Hand , Academe Magazine, AAUP; Intellectual Property and Brainpower Versus AI in Academic Publish

"The concept of transformation is central to US copyright law—which privileges “transformative” uses of copyrighted material in evaluating “fair use”—and emerging case law on AI. It’s worth thinking about what kind of transformation we value as human readers and writers and as beneficiaries of published academic research—particularly as we reckon with piracy in the training of LLMs and the unchecked growth of the AI industry. Considerations about how academic publications enable AI’s transformative processes extend beyond concerns about emotional authenticity important in creative writing to those about intellectual integrity and factual accuracy. 

Authors, editors, and publishers will need to make consequential IP decisions—including those about settlements in lawsuits over AI piracy, invitations to enter into licensing agreements with AI companies seeking to avoid future lawsuits, and editorial policies and guidelines to prevent the misuse of AI in academic research and writing. Some individuals and organizations, including scholarly publications and presses, will encounter opportunities to “cash in.” However, their relatively modest financial gains facilitate the disproportionate enrichment of AI companies that use copyrighted material for training LLMs. Even if that use is transformative in the strict legal sense, it fails to effect the kind of transformation that depends on the uniquely human capacities for thinking, feeling, and complex analysis. Academic journals and university presses must also protect IP—by upholding ethical standards and principles of copyright law—and commit to publishing human-authored works."

Netflix Prevails in ‘Tiger King’ Copyright Case, a Win for ‘Fair Use’ in Documentaries; Variety, April 30, 2026

  Gene Maddaus, Variety; Netflix Prevails in ‘Tiger King’ Copyright Case, a Win for ‘Fair Use’ in Documentaries

"Documentary filmmakers who use unlicensed video clips can breathe a little easier, after an appellate panel reversed itself Thursday in a closely watched copyright case involving Netflix‘s “Tiger King” series.

A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the filmmakers’ use of a 66-second clip from a character’s funeral was sufficiently transformative to qualify for “fair use” protection."

Netflix fends off 'Tiger King' copyright claims again on appeal; Reuters, April 30, 2026

 Blake Brittain , Reuters; Netflix fends off 'Tiger King' copyright claims again on appeal

"A U.S. appeals court ruled ​for Netflix on Thursday in a cameraman's copyright infringement case against the streaming video company ‌over footage used in its hit 2020 documentary series "Tiger King."

The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Netflix made fair use of one of Timothy Sepi's videos and affirmed its previous ruling that the company did not violate Sepi's rights ​in seven others."

The Basics Of Copyright For Films; Forbes, April 30, 2026

 Schuyler Moore,, Forbes; The Basics Of Copyright For Films

 "The film industry revolves around copyright, so an understanding of the basic issues relating to copyright is critical for understanding almost any film transaction."

Anthropic seeks pivotal court win in music publisher lawsuit over AI training; Reuters, April 21, 2026

 Blake Brittain, Reuters; Anthropic seeks pivotal court win in music publisher lawsuit over AI training

"Artificial intelligence company Anthropic has asked a California federal court to ​rule in its favor in a copyright lawsuit brought by music publishers Universal Music Group, Concord ‌and ABKCO, arguing it made "fair use" of their song lyrics to train its AI-powered chatbot Claude.

Anthropic's Monday filing addresses the key question for a wave of high-stakes copyright cases brought by creators against tech companies: is it legally permissible to copy millions of copyrighted works ​without permission to train AI models?...

The lawsuit ​is one of dozens of disputes between copyright owners such as authors and news outlets, and tech giants ​including OpenAI, Microsoft and Meta Platforms over the training of their AI systems. Amazon- and Google-backed Anthropic was the first major AI ‌company ⁠to settle one of the cases, agreeing last yearto pay a group of authors $1.5 billion to resolve a class-action lawsuit."

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.”"

Another Court Rules Copyright Can’t Stop People From Reading and Speaking the Law; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), April 8, 2026

 MITCH STOLTZ, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Another Court Rules Copyright Can’t Stop People From Reading and Speaking the Law

"Another court has ruled that copyright can’t be used to keep our laws behind a paywall. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that it is fair use to copy and disseminate building codes that have been incorporated into federal and state law, even though those codes are developed by private parties who claim copyright in them. The court followed the suggestions EFF and others presented in an amicus brief, and joined a growing list of courts that have placed public access to the law over private copyright holders’ desire for control."

US music publishers suing Anthropic make their case against AI 'fair use'; Reuters, March 24, 2026

Blake Brittain , Reuters; US music publishers suing Anthropic make their case against AI 'fair use'

"Music publishers Universal Music Group , Concord and ABKCO have asked a judge in California to rule that U.S. copyright law does not insulate artificial intelligence startup Anthropic from ​liability for copying their song lyrics to train its AI-powered chatbot Claude.

The publishers' request , filed on Monday ‌in federal court in San Jose, tees up a critical question in the legal battle between creators and tech companies: Does the doctrine of "fair use" apply to the copying of millions of copyrighted works to train AI models?"

Copyright Law in 2025: Courts begin to draw lines around AI training, piracy, and market harm; Reuters, March 16, 2026

 Edward D. Lanquist and Benjamin West Janke , Reuters; Copyright Law in 2025: Courts begin to draw lines around AI training, piracy, and market harm

"In 2025, U.S. courts issued the first substantive, merits-stage decisions addressing whether the use of copyrighted works to train generative artificial intelligence systems constitutes "fair use." Although these rulings do not settle all open questions — and in some respects highlight emerging judicial disagreements — they represent a significant inflection point in copyright law's response to large language models, image generators, and other foundation models.

Taken together, these cases establish early guideposts for AI developers, publishers, media companies, and enterprises deploying generative AI systems. Below, we summarize the most important copyright ​decisions and pending cases shaping the law in 2025...

Conclusion and recommendations

The ​2025 decisions reflect cautious but meaningful progress in defining how copyright law applies to generative AI. Courts are increasingly receptive to fair use arguments for training on lawfully acquired data, deeply skeptical of speculative market-harm claims, and uniformly intolerant of piracy. At the same time, cases involving direct competition, news content, and human likeness may test the limits of these early rulings."

Axios AI+DC Summit: Copyright protection in the AI era will be up to the courts, industry leaders say; Axios, March 27, 2026

 Julie Bowen, Axios ; Axios AI+DC Summit: Copyright protection in the AI era will be up to the courts, industry leaders say

"Washington, D.C. — As policymakers grapple with how to regulate AI, the hardest questions around copyright and fair use are being punted to the courts, according to governance, creator, and technology experts at an Axios expert voices roundtable.

The big picture: With Congress moving slowly and disagreements over policy, judges are becoming the primary deciders of how AI and the creators work together — or don't.

That's partly by necessity: "Fair use is incredibly complicated — case by case, fact specific," News/Media Alliance president and CEO Danielle Coffey said.

"Each case that we get … we start to get these new guideposts," Jones Walker partner Graham Ryan said.

Ryan said they expect at least three fair use decisions this year that will have implications for the broader AI-artist ecosystem.

Axios' Maria Curi and Ashley Gold moderated the March 25 discussion, which was sponsored by Adobe.

What they're saying: Legal uncertainty remains. For example, two courts within the same district, and during the same week, differed in the reasoning behind their rulings on similar matters of fair use and AI.

"There is a current, live controversy over … the extant understanding of the fourth factor in fair use, which is: Does the copy replace the market for the work?" said Kevin Bankston, senior adviser for the Center for Democracy & Technology.

Still, "we have been trying to support the process through the courts, because we think there is a really strong framework in copyright law for protecting artists right now," according to Public Knowledge president and CEO Chris Lewis."

Can coding agents relicense open source through a “clean room” implementation of code?; Simon Willison's Weblog, March 5, 2026

Simon Willison's Weblog ; Can coding agents relicense open source through a “clean room” implementation of code?

"Can a model trained on a codebase produce a morally or legally defensible clean-room implementation?"

Everybody’s Talking About AI: Takeaways from the February 20, 2026 Fordham Law Symposium; Lexology, February 26, 2026

 Seyfarth Shaw LLP - Owen Wolfe, Lexology; Everybody’s Talking About AI: Takeaways from the February 20, 2026 Fordham Law Symposium

"On February 20, 2026, Gadgets, Gigabytes and Goodwill Blog co-editor Owen Wolfe spoke at the Fordham School of Law as part of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal Symposium, The Meaning of Ownership: Rethinking Intellectual Property, Creativity, and Control in the Age of Innovation. Owen discussed how courts have so far applied the “fair use” doctrine to cases involving generative AI, distinguishing between use of copyrighted materials in gen AI training and gen AI outputs that are alleged to be substantially similar to the original works. He noted that the decisions to date have been mixed, with some courts finding that certain uses of copyrighted works for AI training are fair use, and other courts expressing skepticism about whether that is the correct result. Owen also surveyed arguments both for and against a finding of fair use, giving the audience food for thought about what courts might decide in the future and whether we might see an amendment to the Copyright Act down the road.

Owen’s talk followed one by Dr. Douglas Lind, a professor at Virginia Tech, who surveyed the history of copyright law in the United States. He focused on the law’s treatment of phonograph records and sound recordings when those new technologies first emerged. Dr. Lind noted that copyright law evolved, and the Copyright Act was eventually amended, to address those new technologies. Dr. Lind raised the question of whether the Copyright Act should be amended again to address gen AI."

How ‘Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie’ pushed the limits of copyright law to create its most WTF moments; Page Six Hollywood, February 14, 2026

Katcy Stephan, Page Six Hollywood; How ‘Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie’ pushed the limits of copyright law to create its most WTF moments

"“Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie,” the latest mockumentary collaboration between director Matt Johnson and composer Jay McCarrol, probably shouldn’t exist. The film features extended parodies that carefully skirt copyright law, a stunt that sees the duo literally dive off Toronto’s CN tower and at least two dozen more moments that will leave audiences asking “How the hell is this legal?” 

It’s a miracle the film made it to screens at all."

MPA Calls On TikTok Owner ByteDance To Curb New AI Model That Created Tom Cruise Vs. Brad Pitt Deepfake; Deadline, February 12, 2026

 Ted Johnson , Deadline; MPA Calls On TikTok Owner ByteDance To Curb New AI Model That Created Tom Cruise Vs. Brad Pitt Deepfake

"As reported by Deadline’s Jake Kanter, Seedance 2.0 users are prompting the Chinese AI tool to create videos that appear to be repurposing, with startling accuracy, copyrighted material from studios, including Disney, Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount. In addition to the Cruise vs. Pitt fight, the model has produced remixes of Avengers: Endgame and a Friends scene in which Rachel and Joey are played by otters."

When AI and IP Collide: What Journalists Need to Know; National Press Foundation (NPF), January 22, 2026

 National Press Foundation (NPF); When AI and IP Collide: What Journalists Need to Know

"With roughly 70 federal lawsuits waged against AI developers, the intersection of technology and intellectual property is now one of the most influential legal beats. Courts are jumping in to define the future of “fair use.” To bridge the gap between complex legal proceedings and the public’s understanding, NPF held a webinar to unpack these intellectual property battles. One thing all of the expert panelists agreed on: most cases are either an issue of input – i.e. what the AI models pull in to train on – or output – what AI generates, as in the case of Disney and other Hollywood studios v. Midjourney.

“The behavior here of AI companies and the assertion of fair use is completely understandable in our market capitalist system – all players want something very simple. They want their inputs for little or nothing and their outputs to be very expensive,” said Loyola Law professor Justin Hughes. “The fair use argument is all about AI companies wanting their inputs to be free, just like ranchers want their grazing land from the federal government to be free or their mining rights to be free.” AI Copyright Cases Journalists Should Know: Bartz et al. v. Anthropic: Anthropic reached a $1.5 billion settlement in a landmark case for the industry after a class of book authors accused the company of using pirated books to train the Claude AI model. “The mere training itself may be fair use, but the retention of these large copy data sets and their replication or your training from having taken pirated data sets, that’s not fair use,” Hughes explained. The NYT Company v. Microsoft Corporation et al.: This is a massive multi-district litigation in New York where the NYT is suing OpenAI. The Times has pushed for discovery into over 20 million private ChatGPT logs to prove that this model is being used to get past paywalls. Advance Local Media LLC et al. v. Cohere Inc.: The case against the startup Cohere is particularly vital for newsrooms as a judge ruled that AI-generated summaries infringe of news organizations’ ability to get traffic on their sites. “We’ve seen, there’s been a lot of developers who have taken the kind of classic Silicon Valley approach of ask forgiveness rather than permission,” said Terry Hart, general counsel of the Association of American Publishers. “They have gone ahead and trained a lot of models using a lot of copyrighted works without authorization.” Tech companies have trained massive models to ingest the entirety of the internet, including articles, without prior authorization, and Hughes points out that this is a repeated occurrence. AI companies often keep unauthorized copies of these vast datasets to retrain and tweak their models, leading to multiple steps of reproduction that could violate copyright. AI and U.S. Innovation A common defense from tech companies in Silicon Valley is that using these vast amounts of data is necessary to U.S. innovation and keeping the economy competitive. “‘We need to beat China, take our word for it, this is going to be great, and we’re just going to cut out a complete sector of the economy that’s critical to the success of our models,'” Hart said. “In the long run, that’s not good for innovation. It’s not good for the creative sectors and it’s not good for the AI sector.” Reuters technology reporter Deepa Seetharaman has also heard the China competition argument, among others. “The metaphor that I’ll hear a lot here is, ‘it’s like somebody visiting a library and reading every book, except this is a system that can remember every book and remember all the pieces of every book. And so why are you … harming us for developing something that’s so capable?'” Seetharaman said. Hughes noted that humans are not walking into a library with a miniature high-speed photocopier to memorize every book. Humans don’t memorize with the “faithful” precision of a machine. Hart added that the metaphor breaks down because technology has created a new market space that isn’t comparable to a human reader. Speakers:

• Wayne Brough, Resident Senior Fellow, Technology and Innovation Team, R Street
• Terry Hart, General Counsel, Association of American Publishers
• Justin Hughes, Honorable William Matthew Byrne Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola Marymount University
• Deepa Seetharaman, Tech Correspondent, Reuters

Summary and transcript: https://nationalpress.org/topic/when-... This event is sponsored by The Copyright Alliance and NSG Next Solutions Group. This video was produced within the Evelyn Y. Davis studios. NPF is solely responsible for the content."

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."