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."

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."

Why the DOJ’s OpenAI copyright stance is the real threat to national security; ZDNET, September 15, 2026

 David Gewirtz, ZDNET; Why the DOJ’s OpenAI copyright stance is the real threat to national security

The DOJ argues that AI training is transformative fair use, but publishers say unlicensed scraping threatens their survival. This copyright fight could shape the future of online knowledge.

"Ever since generative AI arrived in early 2023, we’ve seen that its almost unlimited base of knowledge is due to how the big AI companies trained their models. To a large degree, AI models like those from OpenAI and Anthropic have been trained on anything they could ingest, including nearly all the copyrighted material on the web.

The AI companies are even reported to be buying up physical books by the millions, cutting them apart, scanning them in, and then disposing of the remains. For example, based on a search of the Anthropic settlement database, I know the company scanned my book, The Flexible Enterprise, and included it in the Claude corpus. I was never asked for permission. I don’t even get a free Claude account.

Due to the bulk ingestion of intellectual property, many companies filed suit against the AI companies. One such company is Ziff Davis, the owner of ZDNET. Disclosure: Ziff is also the company that pays me each week for my writing here.

Two weeks ago, on Sept. 1, 2026, the US Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case is being litigated. What makes this statement particularly interesting is that the DOJ is not one of the parties in the case. The government is putting its thumb on the scale, weighing in on a lawsuit between private parties.

On Monday, Fortune published a commentary by Vivek Shah, CEO of Ziff Davis, regarding the Justice Department’s unusual intervention in the case. In this article, I’ll briefly summarize the DOJ’s statement, then discuss Shah’s premise, and then pick up and expand upon it with some of my own thoughts."

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."

Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library Changes Lives. Some States Gut It Anyway.; The New York Times, August 26, 2026

 Ash Wu, The New York Times; Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library Changes Lives. Some States Gut It Anyway.

"In 1995, Parton started the Imagination Library in Sevier County, Tenn., where she grew up. The program mails a free book each month to registered children from birth until age 5.

The Imagination Library mushroomed after forging an exclusive partnership with Penguin Young Readers in 2001; the agreement was later expanded to include Random House Children’s Books, after Penguin and Random House merged in 2012. In the United States, books are selected by childhood literacy experts, according to the Imagination Library website. Educational nonprofits that partner with the library help to enroll children in their local communities in the program, paying an average of $2.60 per child to cover the costs of books and postage each month.

Parton dedicated the library to her father, a farmer who never learned to read or write.

“My daddy just loved it when all the little kids would call me ‘The Book Lady,’” Parton wrote in a note to fans that was previously posted to her website. “That meant more to him than the fact that I had become a star and worked my butt off.”"

AI Has Plunged the Book Publishing Industry Into Utter Chaos; Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2026

 Anna Silman, Wall Street Journal; AI Has Plunged the Book Publishing Industry Into Utter Chaos

The spectacular implosions of big deals over suspected AI use are forcing a reckoning over creativity, trust and the future of the industry

"The spectacular implosions of big book deals over suspected AI use—and fears about who might be next—are forcing a reckoning over the nature of authorship, the relationship between writers and publishers and the industry’s long-term survival. But nobody can seem to agree who exactly is responsible for solving this problem, or even how much a problem it actually is."

Authors weigh in on $1.5 billion Anthropic AI copyright settlement; WGCU, August 3, 2026

Mike Kiniry, WGCU ; Authors weigh in on $1.5 billion Anthropic AI copyright settlement

"As Generative AI language models have entered the scene in recent years, a wave of copyright lawsuits has arisen in response, brought by authors and publishers. These lawsuits hinge on whether downloading and ingesting millions of copyrighted books without explicit permission to train Large Language Models constitutes copyright infringement or is protected as fair use.

Authors and publishers argue that it is infringement — particularly when AI developers illegally pirate or copy their books to help train their language models. AI companies argue that reading and learning from text is transformative and therefore falls under fair use.

In one class action lawsuit that was recently settled, the AI Company Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion dollars in a landmark copyright infringement settlement. It's one of the biggest in U.S. history.

There are other similar high-profile cases, including one by publishing houses including Hachette, Macmillan, and McGraw Hill, along with bestselling novelist and former President of the Author's Guild Scott Turow against Meta and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg and another against Google. Those cases are ongoing.

The Anthropic settlement means payments of roughly $3,100 to the authors and publishers of nearly half a million books, including our guests. We have a conversation about that settlement, and other pending cases, and what this all means for the publishing world.

Guests:

Marty Ambrose-McLaughlin is an award-winning author and English instructor at Florida Southwestern State College
Scott Turow is a writer and former attorney. He is the author of fourteen works of fiction, including Presumed Innocent and his most recent, Presumed Guilty which was published in 2025."

$2m crime novel deal collapses amid questions over AI use; The Guardian, July 31, 2026

Emma Loffhagen, The Guardian; $2m crime novel deal collapses amid questions over AI use

"A high-profile publishing deal for a debut crime novel has collapsed after doubts emerged over whether artificial intelligence played a role in writing it."

Anthropic's $1.5 Billion Copyright Settlement Sets a Bad Precedent; Reason, July 23, 2026

 TOSIN AKINTOLA, Reason; Anthropic's $1.5 Billion Copyright Settlement Sets a Bad Precedent

"The $1.5 billion award will be split among authors and publishers after fees and expenses are paid, netting everyone entitled to a claim roughly $3,000 per work, "four times the value of the statutory minimum," according to Nelson. 

Anthropic's decision to settle the case might hurt the company's pocketbook for now. Still, it likely avoids a court battle with even wider-reaching implications, since many AI companies use pirated data to train their models. Indeed, AI leaders such as Meta, Perplexity AI, Google, OpenAI, and Nvidia are facing lawsuits over similar copyright infringement claims. Anthropic is also being sued by Concord Music Group, which alleges that the company used copyrighted lyrics to train its Frontier AI model, Claude.

Time will tell how these disputes shake out, but courts placing restrictions on fair use of publicly available data will likely make AI models worse. Instead of settling potential copyright claims, AI companies will likely turn to a growing market for repositories of licensed copyrighted works. 

Of course, this will also make production of the models more expensive, a cost that will inevitably be passed on to consumers."

UK's Bloomsbury among beneficiaries of $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright lawsuit settlement; Reuters, July 22, 2026

 Reuters ; UK's Bloomsbury among beneficiaries of $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright lawsuit settlement

"Britain's Bloomsbury ​Publishing confirmed on Wednesday it was among ‌the beneficiaries of a landmark $1.5 billion settlement that resolves claims artificial intelligence ​company Anthropic used copyrighted books ​to train its AI models without ⁠purchasing the content.

Here are some ​more details:

• Bloomsbury said a U.S. court ​identified 14,087 of its titles covered by the settlement, with proposed compensation of ​about $3,000 per title, split equally ​between the author and publisher...
• The settlement ​is the largest known copyright payout ​in ⁠U.S. history."

Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement approved; only 350 authors opted out; Ars Technica, July 21, 2026

 ASHLEY BELANGER , Ars Technica; Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement approved; only 350 authors opted out

"On Monday, a judge approved a $1.5 billion settlement between Anthropic and authors, ending the largest copyright class-action ever certified and granting the largest copyright settlement ever reached.

Back in May, some authors fought to block the settlement, which was proposed after the court ruled that Anthropic training AI on books was fair use; however, its piracy of works was likely not."

Publishers, Authors File Class Action Lawsuit Against Google; Publishers Weekly, July 13, 2026

 Jim Milliot , Publishers Weekly; Publishers, Authors File Class Action Lawsuit Against Google

"Publisher Hachette Book Group, Cengage Learning, and Elsevier, as well as author Scott Turow, are the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and the claims are being brought on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of authors and publishers. The suit follows an attempt by HBG and Cengage to join the Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation lawsuit first brought by a group of illustrators and writers in 2023, and which Google has been challenging the right for the publishers to participate.

With the new lawsuit, Cengage and HBG have withdrawn their motion to take part in the 2023 suit, observing that Google could assert that a three-year statute of limitations pertains to the class member claims. In light of that possibility, Hachette and Cengage “determined that they must take action to protect claims that appear to be outside the putative class in this action,” according to the motion to withdraw from the original suit.

Among the highlights in the new lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, are that Google executives knew publishers would consider some of its plans to copy books as illegal, and despite facing huge potential monetary damages (a Google document notes the company “faced $10Bs-$100Bs” in potential fines) but went ahead and made copies anyway.

Publishers are especially annoyed that Google is using books that publishers provided the company to build its Google Books search service as part of an agreement to settle a long-running legal battle, per the complaint. While Google can use the books to provide “snippets,” the complaint states, “publishers and authors never authorized Google to copy the works they received for Google Books for the completely separate purpose of training its AI models and building a multi-billion dollar competing business.” The suit also goes after books that are part of Google Play Books for authorize resale and Google Scholar for research."

Publishers Sue WeLib for Copyright Infringement; Publishers Weekly, June 16, 2026

  Jim Milliot , Publishers Weekly; Publishers Sue WeLib for Copyright Infringement

"Fresh off of last month’s victory against pirate web site Anna’s Archive, 13 publishers across all segments of the industry have allied to sue yet another pirate site, WeLib, for copyright infringement.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges that the operators of WeLib “ copied the source code and most of the contents of” Anna's Archive."

The plaintiffs include the Big Five, Cengage, Elsevier, McGraw Hill, Pearson, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley.

“Defendants boast that they have reproduced ‘an endless collection of literature, research papers, and education materials,’ none of which they own or have licensed,” the complaint alleges. 

According to its website and repeated in the lawsuit, WeLib hosts over 43 million books and 98 million papers, and its stolen collection of literary works has purportedly attracted over 80,000 active monthly users. According to the website, WeLib’s users have illegally accessed over 51 million books in the last month alone, or an average of over 1.7 million books per day."

Court Rules Against Anna’s Archive in Copyright Lawsuit; Publishers Weekly, May 21, 2026

   Jim Milliot, Publishers Weekly; Court Rules Against Anna’s Archive in Copyright Lawsuit

"Publishers scored a quick victory in their attempt to stop the pirate website Anna’s Archive from illegally copying and selling their copyrighted material.

In a decision handed down May 19, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued a default judgment ordering the pirate website to immediately cease copying and distributing millions of files that it had illegally downloaded."

Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement is getting messy as judge delays approval; Ars Technica, May 15, 2026

 ASHLEY BELANGER  , Ars Technica; Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement is getting messy as judge delays approval

"After several authors and class members raised objections to Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement over its widespread book piracy to train AI, a federal judge has delayed final approvals of the settlement.

On Thursday, US District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin declined to rubber-stamp what’s regarded as the largest copyright settlement in US history. Instead, she wanted to better understand why some class members were objecting and opting out of the settlement. So, she asked authors to address key concerns of objectors, who argued that lawyers’ compensation was way too high and payments to class members were a “pittance.”...

Objectors may not win every fight, but they have seemingly persuaded the court to at least entertain their strongly worded pleas, including warnings that the settlement may not survive an appeal if the terms aren’t re-examined. Notably, their objections came shortly before a group of 25 class members opting out of the settlement filed a new lawsuit, showing that Anthropic is not done fighting these claims.

“For the Court to agree that counsel’s request of nearly a third of a billion dollars, while individual plaintiffs settle for a pittance of available compensation and no protections against future abuse is an aberration of civil justice and a slap in the face to all those who labored to publish their works,” Story said. “Such a decision would also further the too-often-observed stereotype that … class-action Plaintiffs are merely tools used to obtain Powerball-size payouts to attorneys.”

Judge William Alsup, who initially approved the settlement but has since retired, also questioned whether the lawyers’ fees were too high. Worried that the settlement was being “shoved down the throat of authors,” he recommended an independent investigation to ensure no improper attorneys’ fees would be granted, but according to Lea Bishop, a non-class member objector and professor of copyright law, the recommendation “was not squarely disclosed to incoming Judge Martinez-Olguin” in a status report submitted by authors’ lawyers. Additionally, class members weren’t notified of the investigation.

Authors must respond to objections raised by May 21, when Anthropic will also have to file a brief explaining “why late opt outs should not be honored,” the judge ordered."

Authors, publishers near final approval of $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement; Courthouse News Service, May 14, 2026

 MARGARET ATTRIDGE  , Courthouse News Service; Authors, publishers near final approval of $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement

"Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, a Joe Biden appointee, allowed objectors to address the court, where several spoke about the concerns they had with how the plaintiffs put together the eligible works list.

One class member told the judge that the works list undercounts the number of eligible works in the class by treating each copyright registration number as a single work, regardless of how many books are covered by the registration. The class member explained that she has certain group copyright registration numbers that include 40 separate, independently published novels under one registration number, all of which were downloaded by Anthropic without permission. However, under the current terms of the settlement agreement, the novels would be considered just one claimable work.

Another class member spoke to the exclusion of works that were published under a pseudonym, disadvantageous to small publishers and self-published authors in the class, while a third said they believed a one-time payment was not enough because Anthropic was continuing to profit off the copyrighted work they stole.

James H. Bartolomei III of Duncan Firm, an attorney representing four other objectors, asked the court to reopen the opt-out period as certain key documents from the case were only uploaded to the settlement website recently.

“Nothing I am asking for takes a dollar away from any class member who filed a claim. I’m not asking the court to stop the settlement from ever being approved. Just for sufficient information to make an informed choice,” he said."

Meta’s AI Copyright Fight Just Escalated and Hollywood Is Watching Closely; Los Angeles Magazine, May 7, 2026

 DEVON JAMES , Los Angeles Magazine; Meta’s AI Copyright Fight Just Escalated and Hollywood Is Watching Closely

A new lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg and Meta could reshape how studios, publishers and tech companies train the next generation of artificial intelligence

"The AI Gold Rush Is Running Into Copyright Law

According to the lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, Meta allegedly pulled material from massive libraries of pirated books and scraped internet content to train Llama, the company’s flagship large language model. Publishers argue the practice amounts to one of the largest copyright violations in modern history."

Mark Zuckerberg ‘personally authorized’ Meta’s copyright infringement, publishers allege; AP, May 5, 2026

 HILLEL ITALIE , AP; Mark Zuckerberg ‘personally authorized’ Meta’s copyright infringement, publishers allege

"The plaintiffs allege that Zuckerberg and Meta “followed their well-known motto ‘move fast and break things’” by illegally drawing upon a massive trove of books and journal articles for Llama."

Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess; Vox, May 6, 2026

 Constance Grady, Vox ; Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess

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.""