(Podcast) The Briefing: Anthropic, Copyright, and the Fair Use Divide
The Briefing: Anthropic, Copyright, and the Fair Use Divide
Will I Get Sued if I Create Another Hospital Drama? — No Infringement Intended Podcast
The Briefing: The Supreme Court Dodges the Discovery Rule Question—What That Means for Copyright Enforcement
(Podcast) The Briefing: The Supreme Court Dodges the Discovery Rule Question—What That Means for Copyright Enforcement
Mickey Mouse: un ratón con abogado
(Podcast) The Briefing: The Ninth Circuit Puts the Brakes on Eleanor’s Copyright Claim
The Briefing: The Ninth Circuit Puts the Brakes on Eleanor’s Copyright Claim
How IP Can Fuel Your Startup's Growth
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP – AI and Copyright Law Need-to-Knows
(Podcast) The Briefing: Sequel, Spin-Off, or Something Else? The Legal Battle Over "ER" and "The Pitt"
The Briefing: NBA Teams Fight Back Against Trolling – The Validity of the Discovery Rule at Stake
(Podcast) The Briefing: NBA Teams Fight Back Against Trolling – The Validity of the Discovery Rule at Stake
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: Westlaw v. Ross AI - Is This The End of AI Training or The Future of AI Training
The Briefing: Westlaw v. Ross AI - Is This The End of AI Training or The Future of AI Training
(Podcast) The Briefing: Federal District Court Adopts Problematic “Vibe Copyright” Protection in Influencer Fight
The Briefing: Federal District Court Adopts Problematic “Vibe Copyright” Protection in Influencer Fight
(Podcast) The Briefing: Copyright Troll or Rightful Enforcer? The Fifth Circuit’s Curious Ruling In Sports Doc Copyright Litigation
The Briefing: Copyright Troll or Rightful Enforcer? The Fifth Circuit’s Curious Ruling In Sports Doc Copyright Litigation
Another federal court recently ruled that using copyrighted books to train artificial intelligence (AI) systems can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Act. This time, the court said that, because the issue of market...more
As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies increasingly generate content, designs, code, inventions, and even music, businesses face a pressing legal question: who owns the output when a machine creates it? The legal...more
The US District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of an artificial intelligence (AI) company, finding that its use of lawfully acquired copyrighted materials for training and its...more
The recent federal court finding—that using copyrighted books to train an AI large language model (LLM) qualifies as fair use—provides some guidance for companies developing or deploying generative AI systems and for...more
Within a roughly one-week period in late June 2025, two federal judges in the Northern District of California entered summary judgment rulings on the issue of “fair use” in connection with generative AI platforms’ use of...more
In the space of forty-eight hours, two judges of the Northern District of California issued detailed, partially contrasting opinions on whether large language model (“LLM”) training that copies entire books without...more
On May 9, 2025, the United States Copyright Office (the USCO) released a 108-page report on whether the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials to train generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems is defensible as a...more
On May 9, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a prepublication version of Part 3 of its multipart report titled “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Generative AI Training,” addressing the use of copyrighted works in the...more
As we move further into 2025, the artificial intelligence (AI) landscape continues to evolve at a rapid pace; indeed, nearly every week seems to bring news of another major AI breakthrough. In this post, we highlight the...more
Given that litigation in the United States can take years from start to finish, we rarely see a conclusion to the cases we follow. In a prior blog post, we looked at the potential recusal requirements of the U.S. Supreme...more
Recently, the U.S. Copyright Office published the second of an intended three-part report entitled “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence.”...more
The DC Circuit has reaffirmed and reinforced longstanding Copyright Office policy that only humans can be authors....more
The recent decision in Thaler v. Perlmutter et al., No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2025) offers continued guidance on whether “authorship” can be attributed to AI systems (i.e., non-humans) under Copyright Law. The D.C. Circuit...more
Last week, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Copyright Office’s refusal to register the copyright in this image, which was created entirely by AI. This is consistent with longstanding precedent (in the US, at least) that only...more
On March 18, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that an AI model cannot be the author of copyrighted material under existing copyright law. The court affirmed the US Copyright Office’s long-standing human...more
Last week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Thaler v. Perlmutter. The opinion notably solidifies the U.S. Copyright Office’s position that works generated autonomously (and thus solely) by artificial...more
On March 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “D.C. Circuit”) ruled in Thaler v. Perlmutter, affirming that works created solely by artificial intelligence (“AI”) cannot be...more
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a district court ruling that affirmed the US Copyright Office’s (CO) denial of a copyright application for artwork created by artificial intelligence (AI),...more
Dr. Stephen Thaler’s attempts to obtain intellectual property protection for artificial intelligence were once again shot down by the courts, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed that the...more
AT A GLANCE - On March 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed decisions by a lower court and the United States Copyright Office that human authorship is required to...more
Can a non-human machine be an author under the Copyright Act of 1976? In a March 18, 2025 precedential opinion, a D.C. Circuit panel affirmed prior determinations from the D.C. District Court and the Copyright Office that an...more
Key Takeaways - Non-human machines cannot be authors under the Copyright Act of 1976....more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the Copyright Office’s position that artificial intelligence cannot be an author under the Copyright Act....more
On March 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the Thaler v. Perlmutter case, which confirmed the refusal of copyright registration for a work created entirely by an artificial...more
On March 18, 2025 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter et al., confirming that U.S. law requires human authorship. Specifically, the question presented to the Court was “can a...more